Technical ReportPDF Available

Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015

Authors:

Figures

Content may be subject to copyright.
Internal Market
Industry,
Entrepreneurship
and SMEs
Innovation
Union
Scoreboard
2015
More information on the European Union is available on (http://europa.eu)
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Cover picture: Fotolia_4211055 © Elenathewise
© European Union, 2015
Printed in Belgium
Printed on chlorine free paper
Legal notice:
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the
use which might be made of the following information.
This report was prepared by:
Hugo Hollanders, Nordine Es-Sadki and Minna Kanerva from
Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT)
as part of the European Innovation Scoreboards project for the European Commission,
Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs.
Coordinated and guided by:
Bonifacio Garcia-Porras, Head of Unit, Alberto Licciardello and Mark Nicklas
Unit J3 – Innovation Policy for Growth
Directorate J – Industrial Property, Innovation & Standards
Directorate-General – Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
The Innovation Union Scoreboard report and annexes and the indicators’ database are available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards/index_en.htm
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
Innovation Union
Scoreboard 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7 1. INTRODUCTION
10 2. INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AND TRENDS
10 2.1 Most recent innovation performance
11 2.2 Performance changes over time
18 2.3 Convergence in innovation performance
20 3. INNOVATION DIMENSIONS
29 4. INNOVATION PERFORMANCE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
29 4.1 EU innovation performance
30 4.2 EU growth performance
31 5. BENCHMARKING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE WITH NONEU COUNTRIES
31 5.1 Benchmarking with other European countries
32 5.2 Benchmarking with global competitors
44 6. COUNTRY PROFILES
79 7. INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD METHODOLOGY
79 7.1 How to calculate composite indicators
81 7.2 How to calculate growth rates
81 7.3 Impact of changes in the methodology on innovation index
82 7.4 International benchmarking
84 ANNEX A: Current performance
86 ANNEX B: Growth performance
88 ANNEX C: Definitions of indicators
93 ANNEX D: Country abbreviations
94 ANNEX E: Summary Innovation Index (SII) time series
95 ANNEX F: Performance scores per dimension
96 ANNEX G: International data
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
4
Executive summary
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015: for the EU at large
innovation performance has been stalling in the last year.
The impact of the economic crisis has become visible
for several Member States which showed a decreasing
innovation performance compared to last year.
Last year's edition showed that there were positive signs as the
innovation performance improved and the catching up process of less
innovative countries resumed aer it had reversed two years ago. This
year’s edition shows a mixed picture, with 13 Member States presenting a
declining innovation performance and 15 Member States improving their
performance compared to last year. However, differences are becoming
smaller between the different Member States: innovation performance
has continued to converge in 2014 following the trend resumed last year.
Eight innovation dimensions and 25 indicators analyse
the performance of the EU innovation system...
The measurement framework used in the Innovation Union Scoreboard
distinguishes between 3 main types of indicators and 8 innovation
dimensions, capturing in total 25 different indicators.
The Enablers capture the main drivers of innovation performance external to
the firm and cover 3 innovation dimensions: Human resources, Open, excellent
and attractive research systems as well as Finance and support. Firm
activities capture the innovation efforts at the level of the firm, grouped in
3 innovation dimensions: Firm investments, Linkages & entrepreneurship and
Intellectual assets. Outputs cover the effects of firms’ innovation activities in
2 innovation dimensions: Innovators and Economic effects.
… and the Member States are classified into four
performance groups based on their average innovation
performance.
Based on the average innovation performance, the Member States
fall into four different performance groups:
Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden are “Innovation leaders”
with innovation performance well above that of the EU average;
Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovenia
and the UK are “Innovation followers” with innovation performance
above or close to that of the EU average;
The performance of Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain is
below that of the EU average. These countries are “Moderate innovators”;
Bulgaria, Latvia and Romania are “Modest innovators” with innovation
performance well below that of the EU average.
Sweden’s innovation system is once more in first
position in the EU with the overall ranking remaining
relatively stable...
Sweden has once more the best performing innovation system in the EU,
followed by Denmark, Finland and Germany. Overall, the performance
group memberships have remained relatively stable compared to the
previous IUS edition, with Cyprus and Estonia being the only countries
that changed group membership, in their case changing from the
Innovation followers to the Moderate innovators.
… but with several changes inside the performance groups.
As each year, there are several upward and downward movements
inside each of the performance groups. Finland and Germany switched
ranks within the Innovation leaders. Within the Innovation followers, the
Netherlands replaced Luxembourg as the top performer, UK and Ireland
moved ahead of Belgium, and Austria and France switched ranks. Within
the Moderate innovators, Estonia is the top performer followed by the
Czech Republic that has overtaken Italy and Cyprus. Malta has improved
several rank positions and both Greece and Spain have dropped two rank
positions whereas Lithuania and Poland have switched ranks. Within the
Modest innovators, Latvia replaced Romania as top performer and ranks
very close to the upper group.
The most innovative countries have balanced
innovation systems with strengths in all dimensions...
The most innovative countries perform best on all dimensions: from
research and innovation inputs, through business innovation activities up
to innovation outputs and economic effects, which reflects a balanced
national research and innovation system. The Innovation leaders show
the smallest variance in their performance across all eight innovation
dimensions: across all dimensions the performance of the Innovation
leaders, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Finland, is thus not too
different. The Innovation leaders are also mostly on top and clearly
above the EU average. Only in the second dimension Open, excellent
and attractive research system, Germany scores slightly below the
EU average and in the eighth dimension Economic effects Finland and
Sweden score just below the EU average.
… but some other countries reach top scores in
individual dimensions.
However, some other countries reach top scores when looking at
individual dimensions. Sweden, Ireland, Finland and United Kingdom score
best in Human resources; Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark reach
top positions in Open, excellent and attractive research systems;
Estonia, Denmark, Finland and Sweden perform best in Finance and
support; Germany, Sweden, Estonia and Finland are the best performers
in Firm investments; Belgium, United Kingdom and Denmark are top
performers in Linkages and entrepreneurship; Sweden, Denmark,
Finland and Germany reach top positions in Intellectual assets; Ireland,
Luxembourg and Germany are the best performers in the Innovators
dimension; and Ireland, Denmark and Luxembourg reach the highest
results in Economic effects.
5
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Over a longer time period of eight years, the EU has
been improving its innovation performance, with
Latvia, Bulgaria and Malta being the innovation
growth leaders…
Overall, the EU average annual growth rate of innovation performance
has reached 1.0% over the analysed eight-year period 2007-2014 with
most Member States improving their innovation performance. Latvia,
Bulgaria and Malta are the innovation growth leaders. For a few Member
States innovation performance has not improved. For Luxembourg,
Finland and Greece the average annual growth rates are just positive,
for Cyprus it is just negative and for Spain and Romania average annual
growth rates are negative.
… but innovation growth differences exist also within
the groups...
In the group of Innovation leaders, performance over the eight-year
period has improved strongest for Denmark, while Finland’s performance
has been improving at the lowest rate. Slovenia is the fastest growing
Innovation follower, while Luxembourg is the slowest. In the group of
Moderate innovators, Malta and Czech Republic have improved the most,
while performance for Spain and Cyprus has become worse. Among
the Modest innovators, the highest innovation progress is recorded in
Latvia and Bulgaria whereas a strong performance decline occurred in
Romania.
... and the innovation gap between the Member States
closes slowly.
Innovation performance among the Member States is converging but,
due to a significant increase in performance differences 3 years ago,
performance differences between Member States are still at a relatively
high level. This process of convergence is also observed within the
groups of the Innovation followers and Moderate innovators, but for
the Innovation leaders differences between countries in this group have
remained the same and for the Modest innovators differences between
countries have increased.
However, compared to last year, innovation has not
been improving…
A direct comparison with the results of last year’s edition is not possible
as there have been some changes in the measurement framework, but
a comparison with innovation performance as it would have been last
year using the same measurement framework shows that innovation
performance has declined for 13 Member States, in particular for
Romania, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece and Spain. For the EU at large
innovation performance has not changed and for 15 Member States it
has improved, most notably for Malta, Latvia and Bulgaria.
… which is mostly due to a decrease in innovation
activities as measured by the Community Innovation
Survey…
Performance declined in particular for those indicators using the
latest 2012 data from the Community Innovation Survey (CIS). For
21 Member States there has been a decline in the share of sales due
to new innovative products, for 21 Member States the share of SMEs
that introduced a product or process innovation has declined, and for
20 Member States the share of SMEs that introduced a marketing or
organisational innovation has declined. Without the use of the latest
CIS 2012 data performance would have worsened only for 7 Member
States. Also for Public-private co-publications and Venture capital
investments performance has decreased for respectively 24 and 16
Member States.
Figure 1: EU Member States’ innovation performance
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
6
… but might also be the result of a delayed effect of
the economic crisis on business activities.
Decreasing shares of enterprises with innovation activities, a
reduced activity in public-private interactions as measured by
public-private co-publications and declining venture capital
investments all signal a possible negative effect of the economic
crisis on business activities.
At a wider European level, Switzerland confirms its
top position outperforming all EU Member States…
Taking into account European countries outside the EU, also this year
Switzerland conrms its position as the overall Innovation leader by
continuously outperforming all EU Member States and by being the best
performer in as many as six indicators. But Switzerland’s innovation
performance has improved at a much slower pace than that of the EU.
Iceland is an Innovation follower with an above EU-average performance,
Norway and Serbia are Moderate innovators and the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia and Turkey are Modest innovators. For both
Serbia and Turkey, innovation has improved strongly with average
annual growth rates above 6%.
… and internationally South Korea and the US defend
their positions as top global innovators.
When looking at performance of innovation systems in a global context,
South Korea, the US and Japan all have a performance lead over the EU.
South Korea outperforms the EU by 24%, the Unites States has a lead
of 22% and Japan has a lead of 14%. While the gap between the EU
and both the US and Japan is decreasing, it widens with South Korea.
The top innovation leaders US, Japan and South Korea are particularly
dominating the EU in indicators capturing business activity as measured
by R&D expenditures in the business sector, Public-private co-publications
and PCT patents but also in educational attainment as measured by the
Share of population having completed tertiary education.
As compared with other key international partners, the EU continues to have
a performance lead over Australia and Canada that score at 66% and 75%
of the EU level, respectively. The performance lead is even larger compared
to the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). This
lead is stable or even increasing for almost all BRICS countries, except for
China. Even though its current innovation performance is at 49% of the EU
level, China continues to reduce the gap by growing faster than the EU.
7
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
1. Introduction
The annual Innovation Union Scoreboard provides a comparative
assessment of the research and innovation performance of the EU
Member States and the relative strengths and weaknesses of their
research and innovation systems. It helps Member States assess areas
in which they need to concentrate their efforts in order to boost their
innovation performance.
Measurement framework
The Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015, the 14th edition since the
introduction of the European Innovation Scoreboard in 2001, follows the
methodology of previous editions. Innovation performance is measured
using a composite indicator – the Summary Innovation Index – which
summarizes the performance of a range of dierent indicators. The
Innovation Union Scoreboard distinguishes between 3 main types of
indicators Enablers, Firm activities and Outputs – and 8 innovation
dimensions, capturing in total 25 indicators. The measurement
framework is presented in Figure 2 and Table 1.
The Enablers capture the main drivers of innovation performance
external to the firm and differentiate between 3 innovation dimensions.
‘Human resources’ includes 3 indicators and measures the availability
of a high-skilled and educated workforce. The indicators capture New
doctorate graduates, Population aged 30-34 with completed tertiary
education and Population aged 20-24 having completed at least upper
secondary education. ‘Open, excellent and attractive research systems’
includes 3 indicators and measures the international competitiveness of
the science base by focusing on International scientific co-publications,
Most cited publications and Non-EU doctorate students. ‘Finance and
support’ includes 2 indicators and measures the availability of finance
for innovation projects by Venture capital investments and the support of
governments for research and innovation activities by R&D expenditures
by universities and government research organisations.
Firm activities capture the innovation efforts at the level of the firm
and differentiate between 3 innovation dimensions. ‘Firm investments’
includes 2 indicators of both R&D and Non-R&D investments that rms
Figure 2: Measurement framework of the Innovation Union Scoreboard
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
8
make in order to generate innovations. ‘Linkages & entrepreneurship’
includes 3 indicators measuring innovation capabilities by looking
at SMEs that innovate in-house and Collaboration efforts between
innovating rms and Research collaboration between the private
and public sector. ‘Intellectual assets’ captures different forms of
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) generated as a throughput in the
innovation process including PCT patent applications, Community
trademarks and Community designs.
Outputs capture the effects of firms’ innovation activities and
differentiate between 2 innovation dimensions. ‘Innovators’ includes
3 indicators measuring the share of firms that have introduced
innovations onto the market or within their organisations, covering both
technological and non-technological innovations and Employment in
fast-growing firms of innovative sectors. ‘Economic effects’ includes
5 indicators and captures the economic success of innovation in
Employment in knowledge-intensive activities, Exports of medium and
high-tech products, Exports of knowledge-intensive services, Sales due
to innovation activities and License and patent revenues from selling
technologies abroad.
Data sources and data availability
The Innovation Union Scoreboard uses the most recent statistics from
Eurostat and other internationally recognised sources such as the
OECD and the United Nations as available at the time of analysis with
the cut-o day by the end of November 20141. International sources
have been used wherever possible in order to improve comparability
between countries. The data relates to actual performance in 2013 for
10 indicators, 2012 for 12 indicators, 2011 for 2 indicators and 2009 for
1 indicator (these are the most recent years for which data are available
as highlighted by the underlined years in the last column in Table 1).
Data availability is good for 19 Member States with data being available
for all 25 indicators. For 9 Member States data is missing for only one
indicator including Venture capital investment data for 8 Member States
and SMEs innovating in-house for the United Kingdom.
Changes to the IUS measurement framework
Although the general methodology of the IUS 2015 remained unchanged
there have been four modifications as compared to the IUS 2014.
Firstly, the IUS 2014 indicator measuring the contribution of medium
and high-tech product exports to the trade balance has been replaced
with the share of medium and high-tech product exports out of total
product exports being the same indicator as used up until the IUS
2011. Secondly, the data source for this indicator for the EU Member
States has been changed from UN ComTrade to ComExt which is
Eurostat's reference database for external trade. Thirdly, the indicator
on Employment in fast-growing firms of innovative sectors now also
includes the nancial sector. And fourthly, the indicator on Non-
R&D innovation expenditures has been calculated dierently. Total
innovation expenditures up until the CIS 2010 included expenditures
on 4 innovation activities with the indicator being defined as the sum of
expenditures for the acquisition of machinery, equipment and soware
and expenditures for the acquisition of external knowledge or as the
difference between total innovation expenditures and expenditures
on both in-house and external R&D. Total innovation expenditures
in the CIS 2012 include a fih innovation activity: expenditures for
"other" innovation activities (including design, training, marketing, and
other relevant activities). Non-R&D expenditures now also include the
expenditures for these “other” innovation activities.
Another change is the impact on 8 IUS indicators using Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) data as a result of the revision of GDP data
following the adaptation of a revised European System of National
and Regional Accounts (ESA 2010)2. ESA 2010 provides a revised
set of concepts, definitions, classifications and accounting rules that
enable the EU Member States to produce consistent, reliable and
comparable statistical descriptions of their economies. For most
Member States the implementation of the ESA 2010 guidelines has
been accompanied by the incorporation of statistical improvements
in their data. While these changes give rise to shis in the GDP levels
of most Member States, growth rates have been almost unaffected.
The average annual difference between the level of GDP in current
prices under ESA 2010 and the previous ESA 95 over the period
1997-2013 amounted to +3.4% in the EU28 but the impact varies
significantly across Member States. In 2010, they were largest in
Cyprus (+9.5%) and the Netherlands (+7.6%), while relatively small
or even negative changes were observed in Luxembourg (+0.2%) and
Latvia (-0.1%)3.
The impact of these changes on the innovation index scores is relatively
minor as shown in a more detailed discussion provided in Section 7.3.
1
The data released latest were the 2012 data from the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) by Eurostat 26 November 2014.
2
The following indicators use GDP data: R&D expenditure in the public sector as percentage of GDP, Venture capital investment as percentage of GDP, R&D expenditure in the business
sector as percentage of GDP, PCT patent applications per billion GDP, PCT patent applications in societal challenges per billion GDP, Community trademarks per billion GDP, Community
designs per billion GDP, and License and patent revenues from abroad as percentage of GDP.
3 Eurostat News release 157/2014 provides more details on ESA 2010 and the impact on Member States'
GDP data: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-17102014-BP/EN/2-17102014-BP-EN.PDF
9
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
4
For non-EU countries the indicator measures the share of non-domestic doctoral students.
5
For France the CIS 2010 value for the indicator on Non-R&D innovation expenditures has been revised by INSEE (French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Research) from 0.25 to 0.37.
6 For France the CIS 2010 value for the indicator on Sales of new to market and new to firm innovations has been revised by INSEE from 14.7 to 11.3 as a percentage of total turnover.
Main type / innovation dimension / indicator Data source:
Numerator
Data source:
Denominator
Years
covered
ENABLERS
Human resources
1.1.1 New doctorate graduates (ISCED 6) per 1000 population aged 25-34 Eurostat Eurostat 2005 – 2012
1.1.2 Percentage population aged 30-34 having completed tertiary education Eurostat Eurostat 2006 – 2013
1.1.3 Percentage youth aged 20-24 having attained at least upper secondary level education Eurostat Eurostat 2006 – 2013
Open, excellent and attractive research systems
1.2.1 International scientific co-publications per million population Science-Metrix using
Scopus data Eurostat 2005 – 2012
1.2.2 Scientific publications among the top 10% most cited publications worldwide
as % of total scientific publications of the country
Science-Metrix using
Scopus data
Science-Metrix using
Scopus data 2002 – 2009
1.2.3 Non-EU doctorate students as percentage of all doctorate students4Eurostat Eurostat 2005 – 2012
Finance and support
1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sector as percentage of GDP Eurostat Eurostat 2006 – 2013
1.3.2 Venture capital investment as percentage of GDP Eurostat Eurostat 2008 – 2013
FIRM ACTIVITIES
Firm investments
2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the business sector as percentage of GDP Eurostat Eurostat 2006 – 2013
2.1.2 Non-R&D innovation expenditures as percentage of turnover5Eurostat (CIS) Eurostat (CIS) 2006, 2008,
2010, 2012
Linkages & entrepreneurship
2.2.1 SMEs innovating in-house as percentage of SMEs Eurostat Eurostat (CIS) 2006, 2008,
2010, 2012
2.2.2 Innovative SMEs collaborating with others as percentage of SMEs Eurostat (CIS) Eurostat (CIS) 2006, 2008,
2010, 2012
2.2.3 Public-private co-publications per million population
Centre for Science and
Technology Studies (CWTS)
using Thomson Reuters data
Eurostat 2008 – 2012
Intellectual assets
2.3.1 PCT patents applications per billion GDP (in Purchasing Power Standard €) OECD Eurostat 2004 – 2011
2.3.2 PCT patent applications in societal challenges (environment-related
technologies; health) per billion GDP (in Purchasing Power Standard €) OECD Eurostat 2004 – 2011
2.3.3 Community trademarks per billion GDP (in Purchasing Power Standard €) Office for Harmonization
in the Internal Market Eurostat 2006 – 2013
2.3.4 Community designs per billion GDP (in Purchasing Power Standard €) Office for Harmonization
in the Internal Market Eurostat 2006 – 2013
OUTPUTS
Innovators
3.1.1 SMEs introducing product or process innovations as percentage of SMEs Eurostat (CIS) Eurostat (CIS) 2006, 2008,
2010, 2012
3.1.2 SMEs introducing marketing or organisational innovations as percentage
of SMEs Eurostat (CIS) Eurostat (CIS) 2006, 2008,
2010, 2012
3.1.3 Employment in fast-growing firms of innovative sectors Eurostat Eurostat 2010 – 2012
Economic effects
3.2.1 Employment in knowledge-intensive activities (manufacturing and services) as
percentage of total employment Eurostat Eurostat 2008 – 2013
3.2.2 Medium and high-tech product exports as percentage of total product exports Eurostat / United Nations Eurostat / United Nations 2006 – 2013
3.2.3 Knowledge-intensive services exports as percentage of total service exports Eurostat Eurostat 2005 – 2012
3.2.4 Sales of new to market and new to firm innovations as percentage of turnover6Eurostat (CIS) Eurostat (CIS) 2006, 2008,
2010, 2012
3.2.5 License and patent revenues from abroad as percentage of GDP Eurostat Eurostat 2006 – 2013
Table 1: Innovation Union Scoreboard indicators
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
10
2.1 Most recent innovation performance
The performance of EU national innovation systems is measured by the Summary Innovation Index, which is a composite indicator obtained by an
appropriate aggregation of the 25 indicators7. Figure 3 shows the performance results for all EU Member States.
As a result, based on this year’s Summary Innovation Index, the Member
States fall into the following four performance groups:
The first group of Innovation leaders includes Member States in
which the innovation performance is well above that of the EU, i.e.
more than 20% above the EU average. These are Denmark, Finland,
Germany and Sweden, which confirms the top position of these
countries as compared with last year’s edition of the Innovation Union
Scoreboard.
The second group of Innovation followers includes Member States
with a performance close to that of the EU average i.e. less than
20% above or more than 90% of the EU average. Austria, Belgium,
France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK are the
Innovation followers.
The third group of Moderate innovators includes Member States
where the innovation performance is below that of the EU average
at relative performance rates between 50% and 90% of the EU
average. Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain belong to
the group of Moderate innovators.
The fourth group of Modest innovators includes Member States that
show an innovation performance level well below that of the EU
average, i.e. less than 50% of the EU average. This group includes
Bulgaria, Latvia, and Romania.
Compared to the IUS 2014, Cyprus and Estonia have changed group
membership from the Innovation followers to the Moderate innovators8.
2. Innovation performance and trends
Figure 3: EU Member States’ innovation performance
Note: Average performance is measured using a composite indicator building on data for 25 indicators going from a lowest
possible performance of 0 to a maximum possible performance of 1. Average performance reflects performance in 2012 due
to a lag in data availability.
7
Section 7.1 gives a brief explanation of the calculation methodology. The IUS 2010 Methodology report provides a detailed explanation and is available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/innovation-scoreboard/index_en.htm.
8
The IUS performance groups are relative performance groups with countries’ group membership depending on their performance relative to that of the EU. With a growing EU innovation
performance, the thresholds between these groups will also be increasing over time.
11
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
2.2 Performance changes over time
This section will discuss performance changes over time separately for
each of the innovation performance groups.
Innovation leaders
Over the analysed period of eight years, innovation performance has
been improving for all Innovation leaders up until 2012 (Figure 4, le-
hand side). For Sweden and Finland performance started to decline in
2013, for Germany it declined in 2014. Only Denmark has managed to
sustain an increasing innovation performance level. Sweden has been the
most innovative Member State over the whole 2007-2014 period but
Denmark has managed to almost close its performance gap to Sweden.
Performance has improved most for Denmark. The Danish
innovation index has grown at an average annual rate of 1.9%
(cf. Figure 8 below), followed by Germany (0.6%), Sweden (0.3%)
and Finland (0.1%). Denmark’s innovation performance has been
improving more rapidly than that of the EU and its performance
lead has grown from 25% in 2007 to 33% in 2014 (Figure 4, right-
hand side). The other Innovation leaders have not been able to
match the performance increase of the EU resulting in declining
performance leads over the EU average. For example, for Sweden
the performance lead over the EU has declined from almost 42% in
2008 to 34% in 2014.
Figure 4: Innovation leaders
Innovation index Relative to EU (EU=100)
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
12
Innovation followers
Within the group of Innovation followers, Luxembourg has been the
best performing country until 2013 (Figure 5, le-hand side). The
Netherlands replaced Luxembourg as the most innovative Innovation
follower in 2014 but performance differences are small. Slovenia has
been the weakest performing country in this performance group.
Innovation performance has been improving for most Innovation
followers. Performance has improved strongest for Slovenia (2.6%
average annual growth rate, cf. Figure 8 below), the Netherlands
(1.8%) and the UK (1.7%). Six Innovation followers have been
growing at a higher rate than the EU and for these countries the
relative performance to the EU has improved (Figure 5, right-hand
side). Growth performance of Austria (0.7%) is below that of the
EU and for Luxembourg (0.04%) performance almost remained the
same and its relative performance has worsened from 23% above
the EU average in 2007 to 16% in 2014 (Figure 5, right-hand side).
Figure 5: Innovation followers
Innovation index Relative to EU (EU=100)
13
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Moderate innovators
Innovation performance has been improving for most Moderate innovators
(Figure 6, le-hand side). Cyprus and Estonia are among the best performing
countries with both countries having been in the group of Innovation
followers in earlier years. Lithuania has been the weakest performing
Moderate innovator but the gap to the other countries has decreased
significantly as shown by an increase in the performance level relative to
that of the EU from 47% in 2007 to 51% in 2014 (Figure 6, right-hand side).
Performance has improved strongest for Malta (2.9% average annual
growth rate, cf. Figure 8 below), Czech Republic (2.6%), Estonia
(2.2%) and Lithuania (2.1%). Also Slovakia, Italy, Portugal and
Hungary have been growing at a higher rate than the EU and their
relative performance to the EU has improved. For Poland innovation
performance has improved at almost the same rate as that of the EU.
For Croatia and Greece innovation performance has improved but at a
rate below that of the EU and for both countries relative performance
has decreased. For both Cyprus (-0.1%) and Spain (-0.4%) growth of
their innovation index has been negative and Spain has been gradually
dropping from third place among the Moderate innovators in 2007 to
seventh place in 2014.
Figure 6: Moderate innovators
Innovation index Relative to EU (EU=100)
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
14
Modest innovators
Innovation performance has been improving for Bulgaria and Latvia and
has worsened for Romania (Figure 7, le-hand side). Bulgaria (3.1%
average annual growth rate, cf. Figure 8 below) is among the fastest
growing countries, but aer a strong increase in its innovation index
between 2007 and 2011 it experienced a strong performance decline
in 2012 and 2013. The recovery in 2014 has been insufficient to raise
the performance level relative to the EU to its 2011 peak level of 46%
(Figure 7, right-hand side).
Latvia has been the overall fastest growing country (3.4%) with a
very strong performance increase between 2013 and 2014. Latvia’s
performance level relative to the EU has jumped from 42% in 2013 to 49%
in 2014 (in particular due to a very strong increase in Non-R&D innovation
expenditures) and the country is close to becoming a Moderate innovator.
Romania’s performance has declined most of all countries in particular
due to a dramatic decrease between 2013 and 2014 (in particular due
to a very strong decrease in Sales of new innovative products) with the
performance level relative to the EU dropping from 46% to 37%.
Figure 7: Modest innovators
Innovation index Relative to EU (EU=100)
15
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Growth performance and growth leaders
Within the four country groups growth performance is very different. Some
countries are growing relatively rapidly and others more slowly (Figure
8). Within the Innovation leaders, Denmark is the growth leader. Slovenia,
Netherlands and UK are the growth leaders of the Innovation followers,
Malta and Czech Republic are the growth leaders of the Moderate
innovators and Latvia and Bulgaria are not only the growth leaders of the
Modest innovators but also the overall fastest growing countries.
Innovation performance for the majority of the Innovation
followers, Moderate and Modest innovators has been
growing faster than the EU’s innovation performance. In
addition to this, the slower growth of large Member States such as
Germany and Spain and more innovative countries such as Sweden
and Finland, countries with an above average contribution to the
EU’s innovation performance, explains why average EU growth
performance is below that of two-thirds of the Member States.
Due to the above average growth of the less innovative and below
average growth of the more innovative Member States, there has
been a gradual process of convergence in innovation performance
among the Member States (see section 2.3 for a more detailed
discussion).
Figure 8: EU Member States’ growth performance
Average annual growth rates of the innovation index have been calculated over an eight-year period (2007-2014).
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
16
As there have been several changes in the Measurement framework,
as explained in the Introduction, a direct comparison of this year’s
results with those of the IUS 2014 is not possible, Figure 9 shows the
hypothetical change in overall performance levels since last year by using
data at least one year less recent for the indicators used in the IUS 2015.
For 13 Member States innovation performance has declined
since last year, for 15 Member States it has improved. For the EU
at large innovation performance has not changed. This contrasts
sharply with performance changes observed over the 2007-2014 period
when performance only worsened for Romania, Spain and Cyprus.
Figure 9: Increase in performance since last year
Colour coding matches the groups of countries identified in Section 2.1.
Why did innovation performance decrease for so many countries in the
last year? On average for each Member State performance increased
for more than 12 indicators and decreased for more than 10 indicators.
Indicators where performance increased for 20 or more Member States
include the Share of population aged 30-34 with completed tertiary
education, Share of population aged 20-24 having completed at least
upper secondary education, International scientic co-publications, Non-
EU doctorate students, Community trademarks and Community designs.
But in particular those indicators where performance declined for the
majority of Member States and on average for the EU can explain why
for several countries overall performance declined. Performance declined
in particular for the following indicators: Share of SMEs with product or
process innovations (21 Member States), Share of SMEs with marketing
or organizational innovations (20 Member States), Sales due to new
innovative products (21 Member States), Share of SMEs innovating in-
house (17 Member States), Share of innovative SMEs collaborating with
others (18 Member States), Venture capital investments (16 Member
States) and Public-private co-publications (24 Member States). For 5 of
these indicators the underlying data source is the Community Innovation
Survey. For the indicators using CIS data performance is
negatively affected by the use of the newest CIS 2012 data9. If
the newest CIS 2012 data would not have been used overall performance
would have dropped for 7 instead of 13 Member States. The decline in
performance compared to last year is also partly explained by worsened
performance for the EU average and for 12 or more Member States in PCT
patent applications, PCT patent applications in societal challenges and
Exports of medium and high-tech products.
In conclusion, there is a decline in performance for several indicators
which explains the decrease in innovation performance compared to last
year, in particular for those indicators using CIS data as a result of using
the newest CIS 2012 data. This observation is also confirmed by Table
2 which shows per Member State the 3 indicators which changed most
positively (highlighted in green) and the 3 indicators which changed
most negatively (highlighted in orange).
Table 2 shows clearly which indicators have been the key drivers for the
negative change in innovation performance compared to last year (i.e.
those indicators with the highest number of cells highlighted in orange):
the Share of SMEs innovating in-house, the Share of innovative SMEs
collaborating with others, the Share of SMEs with product or process
innovations, the Share of SMEs with marketing or organizational
innovations, and the Share of sales due to new innovative products.
Indicators which have been driving increases in performance include
New doctorate graduates, International scientic co-publications, Non-
R&D innovation expenditures (but this is articial as Non-R&D innovation
expenditures includes an additional spending category compared to the
previous CIS), Community designs, and Employment in fast-growing
firms of innovative sectors.
9
For the EU28 at large in 2010-2012 the share of innovative enterprises fell below 50% and compared to 2006-2008 this share has declined by 2.6 percentage points (pp). The largest
declines were in Cyprus (-14.0 pp), Germany (-13.0 pp), Romania (-12.6 pp) and Spain (-9.9 pp).
(Eurostat News release 15/2015: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-press-releases/-/9-21012015-BP).
17
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Table 2: Innovation Union Scoreboard indicators
BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK
ENABLERS
Human resources
1.1.1 New doctorate graduates
1.1.2 Population completed tertiary education
1.1.3 Youth with upper secondary level education
Open, excellent, attractive research systems
1.2.1 International scientific co-publications
1.2.2 Scientific publications among top 10% most cited
1.2.3 Non-EU doctorate students
Finance and support
1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sector
1.3.2 Venture capital investments
FIRM ACTIVITIES
Firm investments
2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the business sector
2.1.2 Non-R&D innovation expenditure
Linkages & entrepreneurship
2.2.1 SMEs innovating in-house
2.2.2 Innovative SMEs collaborating with others
2.2.3 Public-private co-publications
Intellectual Assets
2.3.1 PCT patent applications
2.3.2 PCT patent applications in societal challenges
2.3.3 Community trademarks
2.3.4 Community designs
OUTPUTS
Innovators
3.1.1 SMEs with product or process innovations
3.1.2 SMEs with marketing/organisational innovations
3.1.3 Employment fast-growing firms innovative sectors
Economic effects
3.2.1 Employment in knowledge-intensive activities
3.2.2 Medium & high-tech product exports
3.2.3 Knowledge-intensive services exports
3.2.4 Sales of new-to-market and new-to-firm innovations
3.2.5 License and patent revenues from abroad
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
18
2.3 Convergence in innovation performance
Innovation performance differs between Member States and these
differences can become smaller (convergence) or larger (divergence)
over time.10 Until 2011, differences in innovation performance have
become smaller (Figure 10). But in 2012 the process of convergence
reversed and differences in countries’ innovation performance increased
to a level between that observed in 2008. Innovation performance
has been converging once more in both 2013 and in particular
in 2014.
Differences in innovation performance are becoming smaller between
the different Member States. Does convergence also take place within
each of the four performance groups?
Figure 10: Convergence in Member
States innovation performance
The bars show the degree of sigma-convergence (cf. footnote 10). Lower
(higher) degrees of sigma-convergence reveal higher (lower) convergence.
Figure 11: Innovation leaders
Figure 12: Innovation followers
10
The change in performance difference over time can be measured by sigma-convergence. Sigma-convergence occurs when the spread in innovation performance across a group of
economies falls over time. This spread in convergence is measured by the ratio of the standard deviation and the average performance of all EU Member States. Figures 11 to 14 show
an additional indicator for measuring changes in performance differences using the performance gap ratio between the best and worst performing country in each performance group.
Differences between the four performance groups
Among the Innovation leaders performance has hardly converged
over the 2007-2014 period despite the fact that the performance
gap between the best and worst performing country has decreased, in
particular between 2013 and 2014 (Figure 11).
Among the Innovation followers we see a similar pattern as
observed for all countries, a process of convergence until 2011
followed by increasing performance differences in 2012 aer which
performance differences became smaller again in 2013 and 2014
(Figure 12).
19
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
The results for the different performance groups show that what
is observed for all Member States - a process of convergence with
decreasing differences in innovation performance – is also observed
within the Innovation followers and to a certain extent the Moderate
innovators. However, this is not the case for the Modest innovators
where differences between countries have rather increased over time,
and the Innovation leaders where differences have remained more or
less the same.
Among the Moderate innovators there is some convergence
with increases and decreases in performance differences fluctuating
from year to year (Figure 13). For the Modest innovators we see a mixed
pattern for the years before 2010, 2010 and the years aer 2010.
Before 2010 there was some convergence and in 2010, due to a strong
performance improvement for Bulgaria, the innovation performance
dierences within this group strongly declined (Figure 14). From 2011
onwards there is a strong process of divergence caused by a
signicant decline in performance for Romania compared to a strong
performance increase for Latvia.
Figure 13: Moderate innovators
Figure 14: Modest innovators
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
20
Where section 2.1 introduced four performance groups based on
the average performance of countries for 25 innovation indicators, a
different pattern emerges when a comparison in performance is made
across the eight innovation dimensions (Figure 15).
The performance order for overall innovation performance is also observed
for the individual dimensions. The Innovation leaders perform best on all
dimensions, followed by the Innovation followers, the Moderate innovators
and the Modest innovators. Only in a few cases performance dierences are
small: for Human resources, Open, excellent and attractive research systems,
Innovators and Economic effects between the Innovation leaders and
Innovation followers, for Firm investments between the Innovation followers
and Moderate innovators, and for Human resources and Intellectual assets
between the Moderate and Modest innovators. These results show that the
3. Innovation dimensions
Innovation leaders and Innovation followers share similar relative performance
patterns as do the Moderate and Modest innovators.
Variance in performance is a measure for the spread in performance across
different countries11 and it shows how large differences are between Member
States when looking at individual strengths and weaknesses. Performance
differences between Member States across the 8 dimensions are smallest
within the Innovation leaders (variance of 0.46%) and largest within the
Modest innovators (variance of 1.78%) (Table 3), confirming that to achieve
a high level of performance, countries need a balanced innovation
system performing well across all dimensions. Performance
differences within the Innovation followers are larger than those within the
Moderate innovators. The high variance within the Innovation followers is the
result from a relatively weak performance in Firm investments.
Figure 15: Country groups: innovation performance per dimension
MODEST
INNOVATORS
MODERATE
INNOVATORS
INNOVATION
FOLLOWERS
INNOVATION
LEADERS
Average performance
Human resources 0.518 0.549 0.687 0.727
Open, excellent research systems 0.114 0.290 0.672 0.680
Finance and support 0.187 0.394 0.551 0.732
Firm investments 0.231 0.337 0.376 0.646
Linkages & entrepreneurship 0.063 0.308 0.609 0.710
Intellectual assets 0.315 0.400 0.657 0.858
Innovators 0.142 0.387 0.599 0.624
Economic effects 0.259 0.399 0.608 0.665
Variance across all 8 dimensions 1.78% 0.56% 0.85% 0.46%
Table 3: Average performance in and variance in performance across the innovation dimensions
for four performance groups
11
The variance of a data set is the arithmetic average of the squared differences between the values and the mean or average value and it is a measure of the spread of the distribution
about the mean. If all countries would have the same performance level variance would be 0%. Variance would be highest (25%) if half of all countries would share the highest possible
normalised score of 1 and the other half would share the lowest possible normalised score of 0. High levels of variance signal large differences in performance across countries, whereas
low levels of variance signal small differences in performance across countries. There are no statistical rules for identifying high versus low levels of variance as variance, for example,
also depends on the number of countries included in the sample (e.g. a higher spread in performance is more likely for a larger group of countries).
21
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Performance in Human resources
Finland and Sweden, two of the Innovation leaders, are among the
top-3 performers in Human resources. Ireland and United Kingdom also
perform very well (Figure 16). A high share of the workforce in these
countries has the skills needed to participate in and further develop the
knowledge-based economy. Most Innovation followers perform above
the EU average, except for Luxembourg. Most Moderate innovators
perform below the EU average, except Lithuania, Croatia, Slovakia
and Cyprus.
All countries except Finland have improved their performance on Human
resources over the last 8 years. Average performance has improved more for the
less innovative countries than for the more innovative countries. Performance
differences have become smaller over time contributing to the
overall process of convergence in innovation performance.
Compared to last year average performance has significantly improved but not for
all countries. Where performance has improved strongly in Croatia and Portugal,
performance has worsened for 4 countries: Romania, Finland, Sweden and Cyprus.
Figure 16: Human resources
Most recent performance level
Increase in performance over 8 years
Increase in performance since last year
Colour coding matches the groups of countries identified in Section 2.1.
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
22
Performance in Open, excellent and attractive research
systems
The Innovation leaders and followers are performing the best in
this dimension (Figure 17). The Netherlands is the overall leader
followed closely by Sweden and Denmark. The innovation systems in
these countries are open for cooperation with partners from abroad,
researchers are well networked at international level and the quality
of research output is very high. Germany, one of the innovation leaders,
performs below average performance due to a low share of Non-EU
doctorate students at only 44% of the EU average. All the Modest and
Moderate innovators perform below the EU average, only Spain and
Portugal manage to get relatively close to the EU average.
All countries, except Bulgaria, have improved their performance over
time with Luxembourg being the star performer. Performance of the
more innovative countries on average has improved more
than that of the less innovative countries whereas there has
been almost no improvement for the Modest innovators. Moderate and
Modest innovators will need to intensify their efforts increasing the
output of their research systems if they want to close the performance
gap with the Innovation leaders and followers.
Compared to last year most countries have improved their performance,
in particular Luxembourg and the Netherlands. For 4 countries
performance has worsened: Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Latvia.
Figure 17: Open, excellent and attractive research system
Most recent performance level
Increase in performance over 8 years
Increase in performance since last year
Colour coding matches the groups of countries identified in Section 2.1.
23
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Performance in Finance and support
The Innovation leaders and followers are performing the best in Finance
and support (Figure 18). Estonia, a Moderate innovator, is the overall
leader in this dimension12 followed closely by Denmark, Finland and
Sweden. These countries are characterised by a public sector which is well
endowed to perform R&D activities and by the availability of risk capital
for private rms to develop new technologies. Almost all Modest and
Moderate innovators perform below the EU average. In addition to Estonia,
only Lithuania has managed to significantly improve its performance
compared to last year now performing above the EU average.
For half of the Member States as well as for the EU average
performance has not improved over time in particular due to
declining Venture capital investments. Compared to last year
the situation has even become worse with performance having
declined in 17 Member States, in particular in Latvia, United
Kingdom, Poland, Luxembourg and Romania. Besides increasing
R&D spending by universities and public research organizations,
venture capital markets need to be supported to increase venture
capital investments.
Figure 18: Finance and support
Most recent performance level
Increase in performance over 8 years
Increase in performance since last year
Colour coding matches the groups of countries identified in Section 2.1.
12
Estonia’s strong performance has to be interpreted with care as the score for this dimension is based on one indicator only (R&D expenditures in the public sector) as data on venture
capital investments are not available.
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
24
Performance in Firm investments
In Firm investments, the Innovation leaders and followers are performing
the best (Figure 19). Germany and Sweden are the overall leaders
followed closely by Estonia and Finland. In these countries companies
invest much more in innovation activities, both for science-based R&D
activities and non-R&D innovation activities including investments in
advanced equipment and machinery. The performance of Luxembourg,
one of the Innovation followers, is relatively weak, in particular due to
a low share of Non-R&D innovation expenditures. Except for Estonia, all
the Modest and Moderate innovators perform below the EU average,
with Romania being at the bottom of the performance scale.
There are huge differences in performance improvements over a longer
period of time, with performance having worsened for 10 Member
States, in particular for Luxembourg, Cyprus, Romania, Slovakia and
Slovenia, and having improved for 18 Member States, most notably
for Germany and Lithuania. The performance improvement of the EU
is higher than that for 23 Member States which is a direct result of the
fact that Germany contributes more than one-third to the EU’s overall
business R&D expenditures and non-R&D innovation expenditures.
Compared to last year performance has improved for 19 countries and
worsened for 9 countries, most notably for Cyprus and the Netherlands.
Figure 19: Firm investments
Most recent performance level
Increase in performance over 8 years
Increase in performance since last year
Colour coding matches the groups of countries identified in Section 2.1.
25
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Performance in Linkages & entrepreneurship
In Linkages & entrepreneurship, the Innovation leaders and followers
are performing the best. Belgium, United Kingdom, Denmark,
Netherlands and Sweden are the overall leaders (Figure 20). SMEs
in these countries have more deeply rooted innovation capabilities
as they combine in-house innovation activities with joint innovation
activities with other companies or public sector organisations. The
research systems in these countries are also geared towards meeting
the demand from companies, as highlighted by high co-publication
activities. All Innovation leaders and Innovation followers perform
above the EU average. All Modest and most of the Moderate innovators
perform below the EU average and Poland is performing relatively
weak compared to the other Moderate innovators.
For 18 Member States average performance has not improved over
time in particular due to declining performance in SMEs innovating
in-house and Innovative SMEs collaborating with others. Compared to
last year, the situation has even worsened with performance having
declined for the EU average and 21 Member States, in particular in
Cyprus, Austria and Luxembourg. Signicant performance increases
were only obtained in Malta, Belgium and Denmark.
Figure 20: Linkages & entrepreneurship
Most recent performance level
Increase in performance over 8 years
Increase in performance since last year
Colour coding matches the groups of countries identified in Section 2.1.
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
26
Performance in Intellectual assets
In Intellectual assets, the Innovation leaders are performing best (Figure
21). These countries manage very well protecting their new ideas and
innovations, whether by using patents to protect new technologies or by
using trademarks or designs which protect new goods and services. Half
of the Innovation followers perform below average, as do all the Modest
and Moderate innovators. The average EU performance is higher than
that of most Member States due to the very good performance of the
leading countries.
All countries have improved their performance over time, in particular
Estonia, Cyprus, Slovenia and Bulgaria. The performance increase for
Croatia however has been very modest. This general trend of improved
performance in Intellectual assets has been a strong driver of overall
performance increases. In particular performance in Community
trademarks and designs has improved strongly.
Worrying, however, is the fact that compared to last year
performance in Intellectual assets has declined for 8 countries,
most notably for Estonia, Lithuania, Austria and Germany in particular
due to a decrease in the number of PCT patent applications.
Intellectual assets has been a stronghold for the Innovation leaders
and followers but the more rapid performance increases for Bulgaria,
Slovenia, Cyprus and Estonia show that it is possible for less innovative
countries to catch-up to the Innovation leaders and followers.
Figure 21: Intellectual assets
Most recent performance level
Increase in performance over 8 years
Increase in performance since last year
Colour coding matches the groups of countries identified in Section 2.1.
27
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Performance in Innovators
In the Innovators dimension, the Innovation followers and innovation leaders
are performing best. Ireland is the overall leader followed by Luxembourg,
Germany and France (Figure 22). Innovation systems in these countries are
characterised by high rates of firms involved in innovation activities: innovation
seems a natural strategy for firms to meet their customers’ demands and
to face competitive pressures. This also results in faster employment growth
linked to innovation activities. Malta, Italy and Greece are the strongest
performing Moderate innovators. The performance of the Modest innovators
is weak with Latvia showing the overall weakest performance.
Over time performance has worsened for 19 Member States and the
EU at large. The UK, Malta, Netherlands and France have been the only
countries where performance has increased significantly over time.
Compared to last year the situation has not improved with 19 Member
States showing a decrease in their performance. For the share of SMEs
introducing product or process innovations performance has decreased
for 21 countries and the share of SMEs introducing marketing or
organizational innovations has decreased for 20 countries. Remarkable
is the strong performance decrease for Luxembourg as the country also
has the second highest performance level. For Luxembourg performance
has decreased strongly with 17% compared to last year, but as the
country was in leading position one year ago with a performance lead
of almost 15% over Ireland and 9% over Germany, Luxembourg only
dropped to second place.
Figure 22: Innovators
Most recent performance level
Increase in performance over 8 years
Increase in performance since last year
Colour coding matches the groups of countries identified in Section 2.1.
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
28
Performance in Economic effects
In Economic effects, the Innovation leaders and Innovation followers are
performing best (Figure 23). Ireland is the overall leader in this dimension
followed by Denmark, Luxembourg, Germany and United Kingdom. All
the Modest and Moderate innovators perform below the EU average,
with Hungary showing the best performance and Lithuania and Bulgaria
the worst performance.
Performance has improved for 19 Member States over time and
had decreased for 9 Member States, in particular for Malta and
Greece. Performance of the more innovative countries on average
has improved more than that of the less innovative countries
where there has been almost no improvement for the Modest
innovators.
Compared to last year performance for 17 Member States has
worsened with the strongest declines in Romania and Greece.
Denmark, United Kingdom, Malta, Netherlands and Latvia are the only
countries which managed to significantly improve their performance
compared to last year.
Figure 23: Economic effects
Most recent performance level
Increase in performance over 8 years
Increase in performance since last year
Colour coding matches the groups of countries identified in Section 2.1.
29
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
4.1 EU innovation performance
Average innovation performance for the EU depends on the performance
of each of the Member States but also on the average performance of
the Member States on each of the innovation dimensions and indicators. A
comparison of the normalised performance scores by dimension and indicator
to the average performance as measured by the Summary Innovation Index
reveals relative strengths and weaknesses of the EU as a whole (Figure 24).
For the innovation dimensions relative strengths for the EU, as
compared to the average performance measured by the Summary
Innovation Index, are in Intellectual assets (in particular in PCT patent
applications), Economic effects (in particular in exports of medium
and high-tech products and knowledge-intensive services) and Human
resources (in particular in population with completed tertiary education).
Relative weaknesses are in Firm investments (in particular due to a
weak performance in non-R&D innovation expenditures), Linkages &
entrepreneurship (most notably due to a low share of innovative SMEs
collaborating with others) and Innovators (due to a low share of SMEs
with product or process innovations).
4. Innovation performance of the European Union
Figure 24: EU innovation performance by dimension
Performance in Open, excellent and attractive research systems
is close to average but above average performance in Most-cited
scientic publications and Non-EU doctorate students is negatively
offset by a below average performance in International scientific co-
publications. Performance in International scientific co-publications
for the EU however is very low and below that of most Member States
for a "technical" reason. For the EU co-publications between co-
authors in different Member States are excluded from the indicator,
whereas these co-publications are included in the indicator scores for
the individual Member States.
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
30
4.2 EU growth performance
EU innovation performance has been increasing at an average
annual rate of 1.0% between 2007 and 2014, but growth has
not been equally strong across all dimensions and indicators (Figure 25).
In particular, in Open, excellent and attractive research systems growth
has been strong (3.9%). Growth in this dimension has been driven by
high growth in International scientific co-publications (6.7%). The EU
innovation system is becoming more networked both between the
Member States and at the global scale.
Figure 25: EU average annual growth performance over 2007-2014
Also in Human resources (2.2%) and Intellectual assets (2.1%) growth
has been relatively strong. In Human resources performance has
increased most for New doctorate graduates (2.6%) and Population
aged 30-34 with completed tertiary education (3.6%). The EU has been
improving its educational knowledge base turning Europe into a more
knowledge-based economy. Growth in Intellectual assets is mostly
driven by a strong performance increase in Community trademarks
(5.1%), while overall patent application activity has been stable.
Growth in Firm investments (1.9%) and Economic eects (1.8%) has
also been above average. Relatively strong performance increases
are observed for R&D expenditures in the business sector and Non-
R&D innovation expenditures (both at 1.9%) for Firm investments and
License and patent revenues from abroad (9.8%) for Economic effects.
Growth in Linkages & entrepreneurship has been moderate (1.3%), with
improving performance in Innovative SMEs collaborating with others
and Public-private co-publications but decreasing performance for SMEs
innovating in-house.
Growth in Finance and support has been very negative (-3.1%) due to a
strong decline in Venture capital investments (-7.9%). Negative growth
is also observed in Innovators (-1.5%) due to declining performance in
SMEs that introduced product or process innovations and SMEs that
introduced marketing or organisational innovations.
31
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
5.1 Benchmarking with other European countries
When looking at a wider European comparison, Switzerland is the
overall innovation leader in Europe, outperforming all EU Member States
(Figure 26). Switzerland’s strong performance is linked to being the best
performer in 6 indicators, in particular in Open, excellent and attractive
research systems where it has the best performance in all three indicators,
and Linkages and entrepreneurship where it has best performance in two
indicators (SMEs innovating in-house and Public-private co-publications).
Switzerland’s relative weakness is in having below EU average shares in
SMEs collaborating with others (9.4% compared to 10.3% for the EU),
Community designs (0.93 compared to 1.13 for the EU) and Exports of
knowledge-intensive services (25.0% compared to 49.5% for the EU).
Iceland is an Innovation follower and has the highest performance of
all countries in Public R&D expenditures and the Share of SMEs that
introduced product or process innovators, but at the same time the
lowest performance in Youth education (together with Turkey) and the
Exports of medium and high-tech products.
Norway and Serbia are Moderate innovators with Norway’s innovation
performance coming close to that of the Innovation followers in
particular due to its strong performance in Tertiary education,
International scientic co-publications, Non-domestic doctorate
students and Public-private scientic co-publications. Norway’s growth
performance (1.4%) is above that of the EU (1.0%). Serbia performs
very well in Youth education, Non-R&D innovation expenditures and
Employment in knowledge-intensive activities, and Serbia’s innovation
performance has been improving rapidly at an average annual growth
rate of 6.3%.
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey are Modest
innovators. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is performing
well above average in Non-R&D innovation expenditures and SMEs with
product or process innovations, and its growth performance (3.7%) has
been well above that of the EU. Turkey is performing strongly in Non-
R&D innovation expenditures and Sales due to new innovative products.
Turkey’s growth rate at 7.0% is significantly above that of the EU.
5. Benchmarking innovation performance
with non-EU countries
Figure 26: Innovation performance in Europe
Non-EU countries include Switzerland (CH), Iceland (IS), Norway (NO), Serbia (RS), Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia (MK) and Turkey (TR).
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
32
Methodology
For all global competitors data availability is more limited than for
the European countries (e.g. comparable innovation survey data are
not available for many of these countries). Furthermore, the economic
and/or population size of these countries outweighs those of many of
the individual Member States and innovation performance is therefore
compared with the aggregate of the Member States or the EU.
For the international comparison of the EU with its global competitors
a more restricted set of 12 indicators (Table 4) has been used. Most of
the indicators are nearly identical to those used in the measurement
framework for the EU Member States (cf. Table 1).13 The indicators focus
mostly on performance related to R&D activities (R&D expenditures,
publications, patents). There are no indicators using innovation survey
data as such data are not available for most of the global competitors
or are not directly comparable with the European Community Innovation
Survey (CIS) data. The indicator measuring the Share of the population
aged 30 to 34 having completed tertiary education has been replaced
by the same indicator but for a larger age group, namely 25 to 64 as
data for the age group 30 to 34 are not available for most countries.
5.2 Benchmarking with global competitors
This section provides a comparison of the EU with some of its main
global economic competitors including Australia, the BRICS countries
(Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa), Canada, Japan, South
Korea and the United States.
South Korea, the US and Japan have a performance lead over
the EU (Figure 27). The performance lead has been increasing for South
Korea as its growth rate has been twice that of the EU (Figure 28).
Innovation performance for the EU has been improving at a
higher rate than that for the US and Japan. As a consequence,
the EU has been able to close part of its performance gap with the US
and Japan. The three global top innovators are particularly dominating
the EU in indicators capturing business activity as measured by R&D
expenditures in the business sector, Public-private co-publications and
PCT patents, but also in educational attainment as measured by the
Share of population having completed tertiary education. Enterprises in
these countries invest more in research and innovation, and collaborative
knowledge-creation between public and private sectors is better
developed. The skilled workforce in these countries is also relatively
larger than in the EU.
The EU continues to have a performance lead over Australia, Canada
and all BRICS countries. Of these countries only China has managed to
grow at a higher rate than the EU.
Figure 27: Global innovation performance
Figure 28: Global innovation growth rates
Note: Average performance is measured using a composite
indicator building on data for 12 indicators ranging from a
lowest possible performance of 0 to a maximum possible
performance of 1. Average performance reflects that in
2012 due to a lag in data availability.
Average annual growth rates of the innovation index have
been calculated over an eight-year period (2007-2014).
Due to a smaller set of indicators the EU28 growth rate
shown in this figure is not comparable to the one discussed
in previous chapters.
13
The methodology for calculating average innovation performance is explained in Section 7.4.
33
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
For the EU28 data sources are similar to those in Table 1 except for License and patent revenues from abroad where also for the EU World
Bank data have been used.
Table 4: Indicators used in the international comparison
Main type / Innovation dimension / Indicator
Data source:
Numerator
Data source:
Denominator
Most
recent
year
Date not
available for
ENABLERS
Human resources
1.1.1 New doctorate graduates (ISCED 6) per 1000 population aged 25-34 OECD OECD 2012 India
1.1.2 Percentage population aged 25-64 having completed tertiary education OECD, World Bank,
Eurostat
OECD, World Bank,
Eurostat 2012
Open, excellent and attractive research systems
1.2.1 International scientific co-publications per million population Science-Metrix
(Scopus) World Bank 2012
Australia,
Canada, South
Africa
1.2.2 Scientific publications among the top 10% most cited publications
worldwide as % of total scientific publications of the country
Science-Metrix
(Scopus)
Science-Metrix
(Scopus) 2009
Australia,
Canada, South
Africa
Finance and support
1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sector as % of GDP OECD, UIS OECD, UIS 2012
FIRM ACTIVITIES
Firm investments
2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the business sector as % of GDP OECD, UIS OECD, UIS 2012
Linkages & entrepreneurship
2.2.3 Public-private co-publications per million population CWTS (Thomson
Reuters)
World Bank,
Eurostat 2008
Intellectual assets
2.3.1 PCT patents applications per billion GDP (in PPS€) OECD OECD, Eurostat 2011
2.3.2 PCT patents applications in societal challenges per billion GDP (in PPS€)
(environment-related technologies; health) OECD OECD, Eurostat 2011
OUTPUTS
Economic effects
3.2.2 Medium and high-tech product exports as a % of total product exports United Nations United Nations 2013
3.2.3 Knowledge-intensive services exports as % total service exports United Nations United Nations 2011 South Africa
3.2.5 License and patent revenues from abroad as % of GDP World Bank World Bank 2012
For some indicators, slightly dierent denitions have been used for the
EU as compared to the previous chapters. For Medium and high-tech
product exports and Knowledge-intensive services exports the data for
the EU will exclude trade between Member States (so-called intra-EU
trade) and will only include exports to non-Member States (so-called
extra-EU trade). Indicator values in the international comparison using
extra-EU trade only will be higher for the EU compared to those used for
the EU in the comparison between Member States. For License and patent
revenues from abroad also for the EU data will be used from the World
Bank’s World Development Indicators. World Bank data are significantly
below those obtained from Eurostat (e.g. in 2012 the value was 0.572
using Eurostat data and 0.427 using World Bank data). One explanation
is that the World Bank reports much lower values for the Netherlands and
also does not report data for Denmark which, using Eurostat data, is above
the EU average. It is considered that due to these significant differences it
is more appropriate to use the same data source for both the EU and its
international competitors for License and patent revenues from abroad.
For each of the international competitors the following pages discuss their
relative performance to the EU and relative strengths and weaknesses for
the different indicators. Indicator values, performance leads and changes
in performance leads are shown in Annex G. Data have been extracted
from various sources including Eurostat, OECD, UNESCO Institute for
Statistics (UIS), United Nations, World Bank and Scopus.
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
34
The United States has been consistently more innovative than the EU but the performance lead is steadily decreasing.
Between 2007 and 2010 the US innovation index was more than 33% higher than that of the EU, but since 2010 the US lead has been steadily
declining to 22% in 2014.
The United States
A closer look at the individual indicators reveals that the US is performing better
on 7 indicators. A much higher share of the US population has completed tertiary
education, 43.1% in the US compared to 29.5% in the EU in absolute terms
(cf. Annex G) creating a performance lead of the US over the EU of 46%. The
number of International scientific co-publications and the quality of US scientific
publications, as measured by most-cited publications, are also much higher
and scientific collaboration between the private and public sector is 75% higher
than that in the EU. US businesses spend about 51% more on R&D (1.95% of
GDP in 2012 compared to 1.29% in the EU). The US is also more successful in
commercializing new technologies with 51% more License and patent revenues
compared to the EU. The US has relative weaknesses in Exports of medium and
high-tech products and Exports of knowledge-intensive services.
For most indicators however the relative performance of the US has
worsened. Only for Doctorate graduates and Exports of knowledge-
intensive services the US has managed to improve its performance at
a faster rate. For all other indicators either the performance lead has
declined or the performance gap to the EU has increased. The strongest
relative declines are observed for License and patent revenues from
abroad, Patent applications in societal challenges, Exports of medium
and high-tech products and International scientific co-publications. In
particular for those indicators where the gap is increasing – PCT patent
applications and Exports of medium and high-tech products – the US is,
compared to the EU, not performing well.
Performance lead: United States Change in performance lead: United States
The scores are calculated by dividing the US indicator value by
that of the EU and multiplying by 100.
The scores are calculated by subtracting the EU growth rate from
that of the US.
Innovation performance: United States
The performance scores are calculated by dividing the US innovation index by that of the EU and
multiplying by 100. The bold line shows average EU performance at 100 (EU=100).
35
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Japan has been consistently more innovative than the EU, but its performance lead decreases. The Japanese innovation index
reached a peak in 2008 and 2009 being almost 30% higher than that of the EU. The performance lead started to decline aer 2009 and
has fallen to 14% in 2014.
Japan
A closer look at the individual indicators reveals that Japan is performing
better on 8 indicators. A 58% higher share of population has completed
tertiary education (46.6% in Japan compared to 29.5% in the EU).
Japanese businesses spend twice as much on R&D and Japan is also
much more active in applying for patents. Japan also outperforms
the EU on Exports of medium and high-tech products and License
and patent revenues from abroad. Japan has relative weaknesses in
Doctorate graduates, International scientific co-publications, Most-cited
publications and Exports of knowledge-intensive services.
Growth performance of Japan is below that of the EU for 8
indicators and it is above that of the EU for 4 indicators. The
Japanese performance lead has been improving in 3 indicators,
in both patent indicators and Tertiary education. The gap towards
the EU has worsened in 3 indicators, in International scientific co-
publications, Most cited publications and Exports of knowledge-
intensive services.
Performance lead: Japan Change in performance lead: Japan
The scores are calculated by dividing the Japanese indicator
value by that of the EU and multiplying by 100.
The scores are calculated by subtracting the EU growth rate from
that of Japan.
Innovation performance: Japan
The performance scores are calculated by dividing the Japanese innovation index by that of the EU and
multiplying by 100. The bold line shows average EU performance at 100 (EU=100).
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
36
South Korea is more innovative than the EU and the innovation lead has been steadily increasing over the last 8 years. In
2007 the lead was relatively small at 5% but in 2014 it has increased to 24%, even higher than the US-EU performance lead.
A closer look at the individual indicators reveals that South Korea is
performing better on 7 indicators. A 42% higher share of population
has completed tertiary education. South Korea is much more successful
in applying for patents and in particular the country spends more
than twice as much on business R&D (2.86% of its GDP in 2012 as
compared to 1.29% in the EU). South Korea has relative weaknesses in
Doctorate graduates, License and patent revenues from abroad, Exports
of knowledge-intensive services and in its knowledge base with weaker
performance compared to the EU in both International scientific co-
publications and Most-cited publications.
The relative performance of South Korea has improved for 9 indicators.
This has led to performance lead increases for 6 indicators, particularly
in Patent applications. Furthermore South Korea is decreasing the
performance gap with faster growth in Doctorate graduates and
International scientific co-publications. South Korea is experiencing a
worsening in its performance gap in Exports of knowledge-intensive
services and License and patent revenues from abroad.
Performance lead: South Korea Change in performance lead: South Korea
The scores are calculated by dividing the South Korean indicator
value by that of the EU and multiplying by 100.
The scores are calculated by subtracting the EU growth rate from
that of South Korea.
Innovation performance: South Korea
The performance scores are calculated by dividing the South Korean innovation index by that of the EU
and multiplying by 100. The bold line shows average EU performance at 100 (EU=100).
South Korea
37
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Australia’s innovation performance is lagging behind that of the EU and the innovation gap slowly widens. The performance
gap was at its smallest in 2008 and 2009 when the country’s relative performance was 76% of that of the EU and relative performance has
since steadily decreased to 66% in 2014.
Australia is performing worse than the EU in 7 indicators, particularly
on License and patent revenues from abroad, Exports of medium
and high-tech products, Exports of knowledge-intensive services,
Patent applications and Public-private co-publications. Australia is
performing better than the EU on 3 indicators related to the public
sector: Doctorate graduates, Population having completed tertiary
education and R&D expenditures in the public sector.
Australia shows a mixed growth performance in its individual indicators
with performance in 3 indicators growing slightly faster and in 7 indicators
growing slower compared to the EU. Australia has improved its performance
lead in Tertiary education. However Australia’s performance gap in Public-
private co-publications, Patent applications, Exports of medium and high-
tech products and License and patent revenues from abroad has worsened.
Australia seems to perform much better in its enabling conditions but
relatively worse in both firm activities and innovation outputs.
Performance lead: Australia Change in performance lead: Australia
The scores are calculated by dividing the Australian indicator
value by that of the EU2and multiplying by 100.
The scores are calculated by subtracting the EU growth rate from
that of Australia.
Innovation performance: Australia
The performance scores are calculated by dividing the Australian innovation index by that of the EU and
multiplying by 100. The bold line shows average EU performance at 100 (EU=100).
For two indicators International scientific co-publications and Most-cited publications data are not available.
Australia
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
38
Canada’s innovation performance is lagging behind that of the EU and the innovation gap is further increasing. Relative
performance was at its highest in the period 2007 - 2009 at over 90% of that of the EU aer which it started to decrease. In 2014 Canada’s
innovation performance has declined to 75% of that of the EU.
Canada is performing worse than the EU on 7 indicators, in particular on
License and patent revenues from abroad and Exports of knowledge-
intensive services. Canada is performing better than the EU for 3
indicators: Population with completed tertiary education, where the
country is performing almost 80% better than the EU, R&D expenditures
in the public sector and Public-private co-publications.
Canada shows a mixed growth performance in its individual indicators
with growth performance for 7 indicators below and for 3 indicators
above that of the EU. Canada has only been able to improve its
performance lead in Tertiary education. Furthermore it has decreased
the performance gap for Doctorate graduates and Patent applications.
The performance leads Canada has on R&D expenditures in the public
sector and Public-private co-publications are decreasing. In addition the
performance gaps in R&D expenditures in the business sector, Patent
applications in societal challenges, Exports of medium and high-tech
products, Exports of knowledge-intensive services and License and
patent revenues from abroad have increased.
Performance lead: Canada Change in performance lead: Canada
The scores are calculated by dividing the Canadian indicator
value by that of the EU and multiplying by 100.
The scores are calculated by subtracting the EU growth rate from
that of Canada.
Innovation performance: Canada
The performance scores are calculated by dividing the Canadian innovation index by that of the EU and
multiplying by 100. The bold line shows average EU performance at 100 (EU=100).
For two indicators International scientific co-publications and Most-cited publications data are not available.
Canada
39
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
China’s innovation performance is lagging behind that of the EU but its relative performance has been increasing from
45% in 2007 to 49% in 2014.
China is performing worse than the EU in 10 out of 12 indicators,
in particular in License and patent revenues from abroad, Public-
private co-publications, International scientific co-publications,
Patent applications and Tertiary education. China is outperforming
the EU on two indicators: Doctorate graduates (where the country
is performing 24% better as a result of having 2.2 new doctorate
graduates per 1,000 population aged 25-34 as compared to 1.8 in
the EU) and R&D expenditures in the business sector (1.51% of GDP
in China compared to 1.29% in the EU).
However, China’s growth performance has been much stronger than that
of the EU with growth rates in 10 indicators being higher, which indicates
a continuous catching-up process. Growth was below that of the EU in
Doctorate graduates and R&D expenditures in the public sector. China’s
performance lead in R&D expenditures in the business sector has improved
and its performance gap has become smaller in 9 indicators, in particular
in Patent applications, Tertiary education and International scientific co-
publications. China’s performance lead in Doctorate graduates has decreased
and its gap in R&D expenditures in the public sector has worsened slightly.
Performance lead: China Change in performance lead: China
The scores are calculated by dividing the Chinese indicator value
by that of the EU and multiplying by 100.
The scores are calculated by subtracting the EU growth rate from
that of China.
Innovation performance: China
The performance scores are calculated by dividing the Chinese innovation index by that of the EU and
multiplying by 100. The bold line shows average EU performance at 100 (EU=100).
China
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
40
Russia’s innovation performance is lagging behind that of the EU and the innovation gap continues to widen. Relative innovation
performance was above 40% up until 2010 and has decreased to 31% in 2014. The strong decline in 2012 is due to a sharp decline in New
doctorate graduates from 1.4 to 0.4 per 1,000 population aged 25-34.
A closer look at the individual indicators reveals that Russia is performing
worse than the EU on 11 indicators, in particular on Public-private co-
publi¬cations, License and patent revenues from abroad, Patent applications,
Exports of medium and high-tech products and Most-cited publications. An
81% higher share of Russia’s population has completed tertiary education.
Russia’s growth performance is worse than that of the EU with
growth in 10 indicators being below that of the EU, especially for
Doctorate graduates, International scientific co-publications and
License and patent revenues from abroad. Growth was above that
of the EU in R&D expenditures in the public sector and Exports of
medium and high-tech products. The performance gap with the EU
has worsened for 9 indicators, in particular for Doctorate graduates.
The performance gap of Russia with the EU has become smaller for
R&D expenditures in the public sector and Exports of medium and
high-tech products.
Performance lead: Russia Change in performance lead: Russia
The scores are calculated by dividing the Russian indicator value
by that of the EU and multiplying by 100.
The scores are calculated by subtracting the EU growth rate from
that of Russia.
Innovation performance: Russia
The performance scores are calculated by dividing the Russian innovation index by that of the EU and
multiplying by 100. The bold line shows average EU performance at 100 (EU=100).
Russia
41
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Brazil’s innovation performance is lagging behind that of the EU and is stagnating. Relative performance was at its highest
in 2008 at 35% and declined to 29% in 2011. In 2014 performance has improved to 32%.
Taking a closer look at the individual indicators shows that Brazil
is performing worse than the EU on 11 indicators, in particular on
License and patent revenues from abroad, Patent applications and
Public-private co-publications. Brazil is only performing better than
the EU on Exports of knowledge-intensive services.
For most indicators however the growth performance of Brazil
exceeds the growth performance of the EU. Growth performance is
better than that of the EU for 8 indicators, in particular in Tertiary
education, Exports of knowledge-intensive services and License
and patent revenues from abroad. Brazil has managed to reduce its
performance gap in 7 indicators and has improved its performance
lead in Exports of knowledge-intensive services. The performance
gap in Doctorate graduates, Public-private co-publications, R&D
expenditures in the business sector and Exports of medium and
high-tech products has worsened.
Performance lead: Brazil Change in performance lead: Brazil
The scores are calculated by dividing the Brazilian indicator value
by that of the EU and multiplying by 100.
The scores are calculated by subtracting the EU growth rate from
that of Brazilian.
Innovation performance: Brazil
The performance scores are calculated by dividing the Brazilian innovation index by that of the EU and
multiplying by 100. The bold line shows average EU performance at 100 (EU=100).
Brazil
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
42
India’s innovation performance is lagging behind that of the EU and has slowly declined over time. Relative performance was at its
highest in 2007-2011 and then decreased to 29% from 2012 to 2014.
Looking at the individual indicators reveals that India is performing
worse than the EU on 10 indicators, in particular on License and patent
revenues from abroad, International scientific co-publications, Public-
private co-publications and Patent applications. India is only performing
better than the EU in Exports of knowledge-intensive services where its
share of exports is 39% higher than that of the EU.
India’s growth performance is mixed with growth in 6 indicators being
above the EU, in particular for Most-cited publications, International
scientific co-publications and PCT patents. Growth for 5 indicators has
been below that of the EU, with a large growth difference in License
and patent revenues from abroad. India has managed to reduce its
performance gap in 6 indicators: R&D expenditures in the business sector,
PCT patent applications, Exports of medium and high-tech products and
2 of the indicators measuring the performance of its science system:
International scientific co-publications and Most-cited publications. The
performance gap has worsened for 4 indicators, in particular for License
and patent revenues from abroad, R&D expenditures in the public
sector and Tertiary education. India's performance lead on Knowledge-
intensive service exports has decreased.
Performance lead: India Change in performance lead: India
The scores are calculated by dividing the Indian indicator value by
that of the EU and multiplying by 100.
The scores are calculated by subtracting the EU growth rate from
that of India.
Innovation performance: India
The performance scores are calculated by dividing the Indian innovation index by that of the EU and
multiplying by 100. The bold line shows average EU performance at 100 (EU=100).
For the indicator New doctorate graduates data are not available.
India
43
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
The innovation performance of South Africa is lagging behind that of the EU and is slowly declining. Relative performance
peaked at 18% of the EU level in 2008-2009 and then declined to 13% in 2014.
South Africa is performing worse than the EU for all 9 included
indicators, particularly on License and patent revenues from abroad,
Doctorate graduates and Public-private co-publications. The gap
is smallest in R&D expenditures in the public sector and Exports of
medium and high-tech products.
Looking at the relative growth performance reveals that for all
indicators, except Public-private co-publications, South Africa’s growth
performance is below that of the EU explaining the divergence process
in innovation performance relative to the EU.
The performance gap has worsened for nearly all indicators
especially for License and patent revenues from abroad, R&D
expenditures in the business sector and Patent applications.
Performance lead: South Africa Change in performance lead: South Africa
The scores are calculated by dividing the South African indicator
value by that of the EU and multiplying by 100.
The scores are calculated by subtracting the EU growth rate from
that of South Africa.
Innovation performance: South Africa
The performance scores are calculated by dividing the South African innovation index by that of the EU
and multiplying by 100. The bold line shows average EU performance at 100 (EU=100).
For the indicators International scientific co-publications, Most-cited publications and
Exports of knowledge-intensive services data are not available.
South Africa
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
44
This section provides more detailed individual profiles for all European countries. Each profile includes 3 graphs.
The first graph shows the development of the country’s innovation index over time (as shown by the solid line) and its development relative to the
EU average (as shown by the dotted line).
The second graph provides a comparison by indicator and dimension with that of the EU highlighting relative strengths and weaknesses. The
comparison of the indicators is based on the real indicator values before being corrected for outliers, being possibly transformed and being
normalized (cf. Section 7.1 for more details on the methodology used to construct normalized indicator scores). The comparison of the dimensions
is based on the composite index values which are the average of the normalized scores of the indicators captured by the respective dimension. The
relative performance for a dimension can thus be intuitively different from that of the indicators as some indicators will have been transformed
and all indicators will have been normalized. In some cases average performance for a dimension can be above or below that of all the indicators
captured by the respective dimension.
The third graph shows the growth performance by indicator and dimension highlighting which indicators and dimensions have been driving a
country’s change in innovation performance over time.
6. Country profiles
45
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Belgium is an Innovation follower. Innovation performance has been
steadily increasing over time until 2013 aer which it declined in 2014.
The increase in performance has been above that of the EU, with relative
performance increasing from almost 10% above average in 2009 to 14%
in 2012. For 2014, relative performance is almost 12% above the EU
average.
In Linkages and entrepreneurship the country is performing well
above the EU average. Also Belgium’s research system is performing
well in particular due to a high number of International scientific co-
publications. Relative weaknesses are in Intellectual assets where
performance is somewhat below the EU average for all four indicators
and in Economic effects where only Employment in knowledge-intensive
activities is above the EU average.
Performance has improved most strongly in Open, excellent and
attractive research systems (3.9%). For seven indicators performance
has declined, in particular in Venture capital investments (-2.6%) and
SMEs with marketing or organizational innovations (-2.6%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Belgium
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
46
Bulgaria is a Modest innovator. Innovation performance has been
steadily increasing over time until 2011, aer which it strongly declined
in 2012 and 2013, to increase again in 2014. Performance relative to
the EU declined from 46% in 2011 to 37% in 2013, and is at 41% for
2014.
Bulgaria’s relative strengths are in Human resources and Intellectual assets.
The country has high shares of highly educated people and performs
well in applying for Community trademarks and designs. Linkages and
entrepreneurship and Finance and support are the main weaknesses, in
particular due to very low Venture capital investments. For all indicators,
except for Youth with upper secondary level education and Community
designs Bulgaria is performing below the average of the EU.
For 17 indicators growth has been positive, most notably for Community
designs with a growth rate of 61%. But growth has also been high in
Community trademarks (29%), R&D expenditures in the business sector
(19%), Public-private co-publications (14%) and New doctorate graduates
(10%). Strong declines in performance are observed in Venture capital
investment (-28%) and Sales share of new innovations (-12%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Bulgaria
47
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
The Czech Republic is a Moderate innovator. Innovation performance
has been increasing over most of the period with a decline only in 2012.
The performance relative to that of the EU has been increasing between
2007 and 2011 to 80% and, aer a decline in 2012, to almost 81% in
2014.
Relative strengths compared to the EU average are in Human resources,
Innovators and Linkages and entrepreneurship. Relative weaknesses
are in Open, excellent and attractive research systems and Intellectual
assets. In the first, there is a quite diverse pattern with below average
performance for Most cited scientic publications and Non-EU doctorate
students and above average performance for International scientific co-
publications.
Performance has improved most in Linkages and entrepreneurship
(7.9%) and Intellectual assets (6.2%). The fast growing indicators are
License and patent revenues from abroad, Community trademarks
and Population with completed tertiary education. A strong decline is
observed in Venture capital investments (-30%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Czech Republic
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
48
Denmark is an Innovation leader. Innovation performance has been
steadily increasing up until 2014. Performance relative to the EU has
increased from 25% in 2007 to 33% above the EU average in 2014.
In all dimensions Denmark is performing above the EU average, but
most notably in Linkages and entrepreneurship, Open, excellent and
attractive research systems, Finance and support and Intellectual assets.
In particular in International scientific co-publications, Public-private
co-publications and PCT patent applications in societal challenges
the country is performing well above the EU average. Below average
performance is observed in Non-R&D innovation expenditures, Non-
EU doctorate students, Exports of medium and high-tech products and
Youth with upper secondary education.
Performance has improved for 17 indicators and on average most
strongly in the dimensions of Open, excellent and attractive research
systems (5.4%) and Human resources (3.8%). Performance has declined
in Firm investments (-1.4%), due to a relatively sharp decline in Non-
R&D innovation expenditures, and in Innovators (-1.3%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Denmark
49
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Germany is an Innovation leader. Innovation performance has been
increasing up until 2010 aer which it remained fairly stable until 2013
and declined in 2014. Relative to EU, performance was the highest at
27% above the average in 2012, but has dropped to 22% above the
EU in 2014.
Germany’s strongest dimensions are Firm investments and Linkages and
entrepreneurship. In all other dimensions except Open, excellent and
attractive research systems the country is also performing above the EU
average. Below average performance is observed for Non-EU doctorate
students, Venture capital investments, Population with completed
tertiary education and Youth with upper secondary level education.
Performance has improved most strongly in License and patent
revenues from abroad (19%), Non-R&D innovation expenditures (6.3%)
and International scientific co-publications (6.0%). Strong performance
declines are observed for Sales share of new innovations (-5.5%), SMEs
with marketing or organizational innovations (-5.4%) and Venture
capital investments (-5.2%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Germany
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
50
Estonia is a Moderate innovator. Innovation performance has been
increasing at a steady rate until 2013, but declined in 2014. Estonia’s
performance relative to that of the EU has also been improving from
81% in 2007 to 94% in 2013 but strongly declined to 88% in 2014.
Estonia’s relative strengths in dimensions are Finance and support
(based on one indicator only) and Firm investments. Estonia performs
well above average on International scientic co-publications, Non-R&D
innovation expenditures and Community trademarks. Performance is
well below the EU average for License and patent revenues from abroad
and Non-EU doctorate students.
Performance has improved most strongly in the dimensions of Open,
excellent and attractive research systems (14%) and Intellectual assets
(17%), in particular due to a strong performance increase in Non-EU
doctorate students (26%) and Community designs (24%). Growth has
been negative in three dimensions: Innovators (-3.5%), Firm investments
(-1.9%) and Linkages and entrepreneurship (-1.1%).
Notes: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100. No data for Venture capital investments.
Estonia
51
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Ireland is an Innovation follower. Irish innovation performance has
been increasing until 2011 and aer a temporary decline in 2012
reached its highest level in 2014. Performance relative to the EU has
improved from 10% in 2007 to 13% above the EU average in 2014.
Ireland’s relative strengths are especially in Innovators and Human
resources. Ireland performs well above the EU average on License and
patent revenues from abroad and International scientific co-publications.
Other strong performing indicators are Exports in knowledge-intensive
services, SMEs innovating in-house, Employment in knowledge-intensive
services and Population with tertiary education. Relative weaknesses
are in Community designs, Non-R&D innovation expenditures and R&D
expenditures in the public sector.
Performance has increased considerably in License and patent revenues
from abroad (28%), International scientific co-publications (7.7%) and
New doctorate graduates (7.6%). Performance has declined most in
Non-R&D innovation expenditures (-12%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Ireland
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
52
Greece is a Moderate innovator. Over time its innovation performance has
been improving. The country did experience a small slowdown in 2010-2011,
aer which innovation performance increased again from 2012. However, in
2014 the innovation index declined strongly. Relative performance to the EU
reached a peak of 73% in 2009, but has been declining aer that, apart from
an increase in 2012 and was at 66% in 2014.
For all dimensions, except Innovators, Greece performs below the EU
average, especially in Finance and support and Intellectual assets.
Particularly low performing indicators include Non-EU doctorate students,
Venture capital investments and License and patent revenues from
abroad. Greece performs above the EU average on International scientific
co-publications, Non-R&D innovation expenditures and SMEs with
marketing and/or organisational innovations.
Although performance in Intellectual assets is well below the EU average,
this dimension has experienced strong growth (16%). Performance
has been improving for most indicators. Highest growth is observed for
Community designs (30%), Community trademarks (11%) and PCT patent
applications in societal challenges (20%). Performance has declined
strongly in Venture capital investments (-35%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Greece
53
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Spain is a Moderate innovator. Innovation performance was
improving steadily up until 2012, aer which the innovation index has
been in decline. For 2014 performance is at a signicantly lower level
than in 2007. Together with Romania, Spain is the only country with
such a decline in performance. The country’s gap to the EU has increased
over time. In 2008, the relative performance level was at its highest at
77% whereas in 2014 it has decreased to 69%.
For most indicators, Spain is performing below the EU average. In relative
terms, the weakest indicator is License and patent revenues from
abroad. Performance in Open, excellent and attractive research systems
comes close to the average performance of the EU, mainly because of
strong relative performance in International scientific co-publications.
Performance has improved most in the dimension of Open, excellent
and attractive research systems (6.4%) and has decreased most in
Finance and support and Firm investments. The single indicator that
has improved most is International scientific co-publications (9.4%) and
Venture capital investments (-17%) has declined most.
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Spain
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
54
France is an Innovation follower. Innovation performance has been
increasing between 2007 and 2014. The performance level relative to
the EU reached a peak of 8% above the average in 2012, and is at 6%
above the EU average in 2014.
France’s relative strengths in terms of dimensions are in Innovators,
Open, excellent and attractive research systems and Human resources.
The best performing single indicator is International scientific co-
publications. France is experiencing relative weaknesses in Firm
investments, Intellectual assets and Economic effects, although for
the last two dimensions, the performance is near the EU average.
Performance is particularly weak in Non-R&D innovation expenditures.
France has experienced positive growth for most indicators, particularly
in License and patent revenues from abroad (6.8%), International
scientic co-publications (5.5%) and New doctorate graduates (5.1%).
The sharpest performance decline is observed for Non-R&D innovation
expenditures (-3.1%), followed by Venture capital investments (-2.6%)
and Innovative SMEs collaborating with others (-2.3%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
France
55
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Croatia is a Moderate innovator. Innovation performance improved
until 2011 and then declined, followed by a recovery in 2013. Performance
relative to the EU reached a peak of 59% in 2009 and dropped to less
than 56% in 2013, aer which it partially recovered in 2014.
Croatia is performing below the EU average in most dimensions but
above the EU average in Human resources, due to above average
performance in New doctorate graduates and Youth with upper
secondary level education. The weakest performing dimensions are
Open, excellent and attractive research systems and Intellectual assets.
For four indicators performance is above the EU average, with Non-R&D
innovation expenditures being the strongest of these.
Significant performance increases in dimensions are observed in
Linkages and entrepreneurship (9.5%), Open, excellent and attractive
research systems (8.3%) and Human resources (8.1%), with the largest
improvement for Community trademarks (26%) at the indicator level.
Performance has worsened slightly in Economic effects, Innovators and
Finance and support, with the indicators declining most being PCT patent
applications and License and patent revenue from abroad.
Notes: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100. No data for Venture capital investments.
Croatia
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
56
Italy is a Moderate innovator. Its innovation performance has been
increasing steadily until 2013, but experienced a small decline in 2014. Italy
has been increasing its innovation performance relative to the EU up until
2012 with a peak of 82%, aer which it declined to 79% in 2014.
Italy performs below the EU average in most dimensions, in particular
in Finance and support and in Firm investments, with the worst relative
performance being in Venture capital investments and License and patent
revenues from abroad. In the Innovators dimension, Italy performs better
than average. The relatively best performing indicators are International
scientific co-publications, SMEs innovating in-house, SMEs with product
or process innovations and SMEs with marketing or organizational
innovations.
Italy has experienced performance increases for most indicators. Growth
has been strong in the dimension of Open, excellent and attractive
research systems (9.5%), due to performance improvements in Non-EU
doctorate students (19%) and International scientific co-publications
(7.2%). Performance has also increased strongly in License and patent
revenues from abroad (18%). A strong performance decline is observed in
Venture capital investments (-13%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Italy
57
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Cyprus is a Moderate innovator. Innovation performance increased
from 2009, but started to decline from 2012 onwards. For 2014 the
innovation index is just below that in 2007. The performance relative
to the EU peaked in 2008 (95%), but has been in decline as well from
2012. In 2014, relative performance dropped to 80%.
Cyprus performs below the EU average for most dimensions. At the
indicator level, performance is well below average in License and
patent revenues from abroad, R&D expenditures in the business sector,
Non-EU doctorate students, New doctorate graduates and PCT patent
applications. Relative strong performance is observed for Community
trademarks, International scientific co-publications and Innovative SMEs
collaborating with others.
Performance has improved in five dimensions, in particular in Intellectual
assets (26%) and Linkages and entrepreneurship (16%). The indicator
with overwhelmingly strongest growth is PCT patent applications
in societal challenges (63%). Performance has worsened in Firm
investments, Economic effects and Innovators, in particular due to strong
performance declines in License and patent revenues from abroad
(-32%) and Non-R&D innovation expenditures (-17%).
Notes: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100. No data for Venture capital investments.
Cyprus
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
58
Latvia is a Modest innovator. Innovation performance has been
increasing until 2011 but dropped in 2012-2013. In 2014, the innovation
index rose sharply. Over time, Latvia has been improving its relative
performance to the EU from 42% in 2007 to 49% in 2014, although
there was a significant dip in 2012-2013.
Latvia performs well below the EU average for most dimensions,
particularly for Open, excellent and attractive research systems, Linkages
and entrepreneurship and Innovators. The relatively worst performing
indicators are Public-private co-publications, Non-EU doctorate students
and License and patent revenues from abroad. Relative strengths
for Latvia are in Non-R&D innovation expenditures, Population with
completed tertiary education and Youth with upper secondary level
education.
Despite the fact that Latvia performs below the average of the EU for
almost all indicators, performance is increasing for about two-thirds of
the indicators. High growth is observed for Non-EU doctorate students
(32%), Community trademarks (17%) and New doctorate graduates
(14%). A large decline in performance is observed for R&D expenditures
in the business sector (-9.0%).
Notes: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100. No data for Venture capital investments.
Latvia
59
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Lithuania is a Moderate innovator. Despite some fluctuations the
overall innovation performance has been improving since 2007. The
performance relative to the EU has also been improving in the last
few years, and although there has been a slight decline in 2014, the
performance is above the 50% threshold value between being a Modest
or Moderate innovator.
Lithuania performs below the average of the EU for most dimensions,
except for Human resources and Finance and support. Relatively worst
performing indicators are Non-EU doctorate students, PCT patent
applications in societal challenges, License and patent revenues from
abroad and PCT patent applications. Performance above average
is observed for Non-R&D innovation expenditures, Population with
completed tertiary education and Youth with upper secondary level
education.
Particularly high growth is observed for License and patent revenues
from abroad (61%), but also Community trademarks (18%) and
Community designs (18%) show high growth. The largest performance
declines are for PCT patent applications in societal challenges, Sales
share of new innovations and Non-EU doctorate students.
Notes: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100. No data for Venture capital investments.
Lithuania
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
60
Luxembourg is an Innovation follower. Performance declined in 2010
and 2011 (due to a much worse performance in Non-R&D innovation
expenditures) but more than fully recovered in 2012 and 2013. However, in
2014 there is again a significant decline and the innovation index is nearly
at the same level in 2014 as it was in 2007. The performance relative to
the EU has declined over time from 23% in 2007 to 16% above the EU
average in 2014.
For most dimensions Luxembourg performs close to or above the EU average,
with the only exception being Firm investments where performance is
signicantly worse. Relative strengths for Luxembourg at the indicator level
are in Venture capital investments, Community trademarks and International
scientific co-publications. Luxembourg performs well below the average for
Non-R&D innovation expenditures and New doctorate graduates.
Performance in Luxembourg's research system has been growing
strongly (13%), mainly because of high growth in International scientific
co-publications (23%) and Most cited publications (16%). Growth is
observed for close to half of the innovation indicators. Strong declines
are observed in Non-R&D innovation expenditures, Venture capital
investments and R&D expenditures in the business sector.
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Luxembourg
61
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Hungary is a Moderate innovator. The country’s innovation
performance, despite some fluctuations, improved between 2007 and
2014. The performance relative to the EU has had more fluctuations, but
over time it has increased to 67% in 2014 from around 65% in 2007.
Hungary performs below the EU average for all dimensions, and nearly
all indicators, especially for Non-EU doctorate students and Community
designs. Relative strengths in terms of indicators are observed in License
and patent revenues from abroad, Exports in medium and high-tech
products and International scientific co-publications.
For more than half of the innovation indicators performance has
improved. High growth is observed for R&D expenditures in the business
sector (11%), Community trademarks (10%) and License and patent
revenue from abroad (9.2%). Notable declines in performance are
observed in Sales share of new innovations (-4.1%) and SMEs with
product or process innovations (-3.8%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Hungary
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
62
Malta is a Moderate innovator. Innovation performance was fairly
stable until 2011 aer which it declined followed by a strong recovery
in 2013 and 2014. The performance relative to the EU reached 66% in
2009, 57% in 2012 and strongly improved to 71% in 2014.
Malta is performing below the average of the EU for most dimensions
and indicators. The strongest relative weaknesses are in PCT patent
applications in societal challenges and PCT patent applications. Relative
strengths are in particular in Community trademarks, but also in Non-R&D
innovation expenditures and Community designs, among others.
Two strongly growing innovation dimensions are Linkages and
entrepreneurship (28%) and Open, excellent and attractive research
systems (19%), the first because of strong growth in Public-private co-
publications (28%), and the latter mainly because of exceptional growth
in Most cited publications (46%). Performance for most innovation
indicators has improved, with large increases also observed for
Community designs (31%) and Community trademarks (21%). Declining
performance is observed in particular for License and patent revenues
from abroad (-15%), Sales share of new innovations (-11%) and PCT
patent applications (-8.6%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100. No data for Venture capital investments.
Malta
63
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
The Netherlands is an Innovation follower. Performance has been
improving steadily up until 2011 then increased strongly in 2012
(among others due to an increase in the share of product or process
innovators), aer which it has continued to increase at a modest pace.
The performance relative to the EU reached a peak of 18% above the
average in 2012. In 2014, it is at 17% above the EU average.
The Netherlands is performing at or above the EU average for most
dimensions, the only exception being Firm investments, because
of poor relative performance in Non-R&D innovation expenditures.
Excellent relative performance is observed in International scientific
co-publications, License and patent revenues from abroad and Public-
private co-publications. Relative weaknesses are in Non-R&D innovation
expenditures and Exports in knowledge-intensive services.
Performance has improved for most dimensions and indicators. High
growth is observed, in particular, for License and patent revenues from
abroad (15%), PCT patent applications in societal challenges (9.0%)
and International scientific co-publications (7.8%). Significant declines
in performance are observed for Venture capital investments, Non-R&D
innovation expenditures and Exports in knowledge-intensive services.
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Netherlands
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
64
Austria is an Innovation follower. Innovation performance was
increasing until 2009, but declined in 2010. The innovation performance
more than fully recovered since but there has been another decline in
performance in 2014. The performance relative to the EU peaked at
10% above the average in 2009 and is at 5% in 2014.
Austria performs better than the EU average for most dimensions,
except Economic eects and Finance and support, the latter because
of poor relative performance in Venture capital investments. In terms
of indicators, relative strengths for Austria are particularly International
scientic co-publications and Community trademarks. Relative
weaknesses are in Venture capital investments, Non-EU doctorate
students and License and patent revenues from abroad.
Most dimensions and indicators show positive growth. The strongest
increases in performance are observed for International scientific co-
publications (7.8%), Community trademarks (6.4%) and License and
patent revenues from abroad (6.2%). Significant declines in performance
are observed in Sales share of new innovations (-4.6%) and SMEs with
product or process innovations (-4.1%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Austria
65
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Poland is a Moderate innovator. Innovation performance has been
somewhat volatile within a relatively narrow range: it improved between
2007 and 2011, but then fell for 2012 and 2013, and increased again
for 2014. Poland's relative performance has declined from 58% in 2007
to 56% in 2014.
Poland is performing below the EU average for all dimensions,
particularly for Open, excellent and attractive research systems and
Linkages and entrepreneurship. For most indicators performance is also
performing below the EU average, with largest relative weaknesses
in Non-EU doctorate students, PCT patent applications in societal
challenges, Public-private co-publications, License and patent revenues
from abroad and PCT patent applications. Relative strengths for Poland
are in Non-R&D innovation expenditures and Community designs.
Performance has increased for about half of the dimensions and
indicators. High growth is observed for License and patent revenues
from abroad (27%), and more moderate growth for Community designs
(12%) and R&D expenditures in the business sector (12%). Fairly strong
declines in performance are observed in Innovative SMEs collaborating
with others and SMEs with marketing or organisational innovations.
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Poland
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
66
Portugal is a Moderate innovator. Innovation performance was
increasing until 2010 aer which it declined. Portugal managed to improve
its performance relative to the EU from 70% in 2007 to 78% in 2010 but
performance declined to less than 73% of that of the EU in 2014.
Portugal performs below the EU average for all dimensions, except
Innovators which is exactly at the average level. Performance for most
indicators is also below the average, in particular for License and
patent revenues from abroad, PCT patent applications and PCT patent
applications in societal challenges. Relative strengths for Portugal are
in International scientific co-publications, SMEs innovating in-house and
SMEs with product or process innovations.
Performance in half of the innovation dimensions is growing, especially
in Intellectual assets (11%) and Open, excellent and attractive research
systems (10%). Performance in most indicators has improved, in particular
in PCT patent applications in societal challenges (22%), PCT patent
applications (15%), International scientific co-publications (13%) and
Non-EU doctorate students (13%). Fairly large declines in performance
are observed in License and patent revenues from abroad, Venture capital
investments and Non-R&D innovation expenditures.
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Portugal
67
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Romania is a Modest innovator. Innovation performance mostly
increased until 2011 aer which it has been declining. Innovation
performance in 2014 is at a significantly lower level than in 2007. The
development of Romania's relative performance to the EU has closely
followed the development of the innovation index. Over time, the
relative performance has worsened from 46% in 2007 to 37% in 2014.
Romania is performing well below the average of the EU for all
dimensions and almost all indicators. The weakest relative performance
in terms of dimensions is Linkages and entrepreneurship while in
terms of indicators the worst relative performance is observed for PCT
patent applications and PCT patent applications in societal challenges.
Romania performs similar to the EU average for a number of indicators,
in particular New doctorate graduates, Exports in knowledge-intensive
services and Youth with upper secondary level education.
Performance has increased for most innovation dimensions, especially
Linkages and entrepreneurship and Intellectual assets, and for about
half of the indicators. High growth is observed for Community designs
(29%) and Community trademarks (22%). The strongest declines in
performance are observed in Sales share of new innovations (-21%)
and Venture capital investments (-20%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Romania
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
68
Slovenia is an Innovation follower. Innovation performance has been
steadily increasing with a minor downfall in 2012. Slovenia’s relative
performance to the EU has improved from 86% in 2007 to 96% in 2014.
The increase in relative performance has moved the country from the
Moderate innovators into the Innovation followers from 2008 onwards.
Slovenia performs close to the EU average with performance for 4
dimensions being above and for 4 dimensions being below the average.
Particular relative strengths are in International scientific co-publications,
Public-private co-publications, Community designs and R&D expenditures
in the business sector. Strong relative weaknesses are observed for License
and patent revenues from abroad and Non-EU doctorate students.
Performance in most dimensions and indicators has improved. The fastest
growing dimension is Intellectual assets (11%), and for indicators, the
highest growth is observed for Community trademarks (25%), License and
patent revenues from abroad (16%), Community designs (15%) and Non-
EU doctorate students (11%). A strong decline in performance is observed
only in Non-R&D innovation expenditures (-12%).
Notes: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100. No data for Venture capital investments.
Slovenia
69
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Slovakia is a Moderate innovator. Innovation performance has
increased between 2007 and 2014, but declined in 2010 and in 2013.
The performance relative to the EU has had more fluctuations but over
time has increased significantly. Performance relative to the EU reached
a peak in 2012 at 69% of the EU average, but fell to 64% in 2014.
Slovakia performs below the EU average for all dimensions, except
Human resources, and also for most indicators. Large relative strengths
in terms of indicators are in Sales share of new innovations and New
doctorate graduates. Large relative weaknesses are in License and
patent revenues from abroad, Non-EU doctorate students, PCT patent
applications in societal challenges and PCT patent applications.
Performance in most dimensions and most indicators has improved.
The highest growth in terms of indicators is observed for Community
trademarks (18%) and Non-EU doctorate students (14%). A very strong
decline in performance can be observed in License and patent revenues
from abroad (-38%), and a more modest decline for Non-R&D innovation
expenditures (-8.8%).
Notes: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100. No data for Venture capital investments.
Slovakia
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
70
Finland is an Innovation leader, and its innovation performance has
been steadily increasing until 2012, aer which it has slightly declined.
Finland's performance relative to the EU has been declining from its
peak of 30% above the EU average in 2007 to 22% in 2014.
Finland is performing above the average of the EU for most dimensions
and most indicators. The strongest relative strengths are in PCT patent
applications, International scientific co-publications and License and
patent revenues from abroad. Relative weaknesses are in Non-EU
doctorate students, Non-R&D innovation expenditures and Exports in
knowledge-intensive services.
Performance in only two innovation dimensions has improved, in Open,
excellent and attractive research systems and Intellectual assets.
Performance in less than half of the indicators has improved. Particularly
high growth is observed for License and patent revenues from abroad
(16%) and Non-EU doctorate students (10%). Notable declines in
performance are observed for Non-R&D innovation expenditures (-5.8%)
and Innovative SMEs collaborating with others (-8.9%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Finland
71
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Sweden is an Innovation leader. Its innovation performance increased
until 2012, but has been declining since, with the decline being rather
sharp in 2014. The performance relative to the EU has been declining
more or less over the whole period from its peak of 42% above the
average in 2008 to 33% in 2014.
Sweden is performing above the average of the EU for all dimensions,
except Economic effects which is just below the EU average. Performance
in nearly all of the indicators is also above the EU average, especially in
Public-private co-publications, International scientific co-publications, PCT
patent applications and PCT patent applications in societal challenges.
Relative weaknesses can be observed for Sales share of new innovations
and Exports in knowledge-intensive services.
Performance has improved strongly in Open, excellent and attractive research
systems (4.9%) but declined strongly in Finance and support (-6.2%).
Performance for about half of the indicators has improved with significant
positive growth being observed for Non-EU doctorate students (8.8%),
International scientific co-publications (6.3%) and Community trademarks
(5.8%). A strong decline in performance can be observed for Venture capital
investments (-14%) while more modest declines are registered for Sales
share of new innovations and Innovative SMEs collaborating with others.
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Sweden
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
72
The United Kingdom is an Innovation follower. Its innovation
performance has been improving at a steady rate between 2007 and
2014. The performance relative to the EU has also been on the rise for
most of the same time period. The performance was at 9% above the
EU average in 2007, and is at 15% above the average for 2014.
The UK performs better than the EU average for most dimensions and
slightly more than half of the indicators. The best performing dimension
is Linkages and entrepreneurship. Relative best performance is in
Innovative SMEs collaborating with others, Venture capital investments
and International scientic co-publications. A relative weakness is
the dimension of Firm investments, especially due to bad relative
performance in Non-R&D innovation expenditures.
Performance in most dimensions and indicators has improved, although
in most cases growth is modest. Performance has improved most clearly
for Innovative SMEs collaborating with others (11%) and Sales share
of new innovations (7.5%). A strong decline in performance is observed
in Finance and support (-5.8%), mainly due to a signicant decline in
Venture capital investments (-10%).
Notes: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100. No data for SMEs innovating in-house.
United Kingdom
73
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Iceland is an Innovation follower. Performance improved strongly
until 2009 aer which it declined, mainly due to declining performance
in Patent applications and Community trade¬marks. In 2013 innovation
performance was below its level in 2007, but it recovered strongly in
2014. The performance relative to the EU has declined from being 20%
above the EU average in 2008-2009 to 12% above average in 2014.
Iceland performs better than the EU average in most innovation
dimensions. The overwhelmingly strongest relative strengths for
Iceland in terms of indicators are Public-private co-publications and
International scientic co-publications. Relative weaknesses are in
Exports in medium and high-tech products, Community designs, Sales
share of new innovations and New doctorate graduates.
For half of the dimensions and most indicators performance has
improved. The highest growth is observed in New doctorate graduates
(17%) and Community trademarks (17%). Fairly signicant declines
in performance are observed in PCT patent applications in societal
challenges (-11%), Sales share of new innovations (-9.2%) and License
and patent revenues from abroad (-8.4%).
Notes: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100. No data for Venture capital investments, Non-R&D innovation expenditures and SMEs
innovating in-house.
Iceland
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
74
Norway is a Moderate innovator. Norwegian innovation performance
has been increasing since 2007, with a small decline in 2014. Norway's
performance, as compared to the EU, increased until 2012, peaking at
89%, but relative performance has since then been in decline and is at
86% of the EU average for 2014.
Norway is performing below the EU average for most dimensions and
most indicators, particularly for License and patent revenues from abroad,
Community designs and Exports in medium and high-tech products. A
strong innovation dimension for Norway is Open, excellent and attractive
research systems, due to exceptional relative performance in International
scientific co-publications. Good relative performance is also observed for
Public-private co-publications and Venture capital investments.
Performance in most innovation dimensions and most innovation
indicators has increased. The highest growth at the indicator level is
observed for Non-R&D innovation expenditures (13%) and International
scientific co-publications (10%). Large performance declines are
observed in License and patent revenues from abroad (-10%) and
Community designs (-10%).
Note: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100.
Norway
75
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Switzerland is an Innovation leader and the most innovative country
in Europe. Its performance increased until 2009, then declined until
2012 and has started climbing again since then. The lead over the EU
has been declining since 2009 but is still 46% above the EU average.
Switzerland is performing well above the EU average for all dimensions
and for most indicators, in particular in 3 indicators: International
scientific co-publications, Public-private co-publications and License
and patent revenues from abroad. Relative weaknesses are in Exports in
knowledge-intensive services, Community designs and Innovative SMEs
collaborating with others.
For half of the innovation dimensions and more than half of the
indicators performance has increased. Performance has improved most
for Non-R&D innovation expenditures (8.2%), International scientic
co-publications (8.0%), License and patent revenues from abroad
(7.4%) and SMEs innovating in-house (7.0%). The strongest declines
in performance are observed in Venture capital investments and
Community designs.
Notes: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100. No data for SMEs with marketing or organisational innovations.
Switzerland
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
76
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is a Modest innovator.
Innovation performance was increasing between 2007 and 2012, but
has declined slightly since then. The country has been catching up to
the performance level of the EU: its relative performance improved from
35% in 2007 to 42% in 2014.
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is performing well below the
EU average for nearly all dimensions and indicators. In relative terms the
worst performing dimension is Intellectual assets. Relative performance
is also weak in all the indicators that belong to this dimension. Relative
strengths can be found in Non-R&D innovation expenditures and SMES
with product or process innovations.
For many indicators performance has not changed over time as, due to a
lack of data, data is available for one year only. Performance has increased
most signicantly for the dimensions of Open, excellent and attractive
research systems (7.7%) and Human resources (6.5%). At the indicator
level, the highest growth can be observed for Community trademarks
(20%) and Most cited publications (18%). The only strong decline in
performance can be observed for PCT patent applications (-10%).
Notes: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100. No data for Venture capital investments, Public-private scientific co-publications and
Employment in fast-growing firms of innovative sectors.
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
77
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Serbia is a Moderate innovator. Innovation performance has
increased over the whole period, except for a small decline in 2011.
Relative performance to the EU has improved signicantly from 48% in
2007 to 69% in 2014.
Serbia is performing below the EU average for most dimensions
and indicators. The most signicant relative strength is in Non-R&D
innovation expenditures which lis Firm investments to the best
performing dimension. Strongest relative weaknesses are in Community
designs, Community trademarks, R&D expenditures in the business
sector and License and patent revenues from abroad.
Performance has increased for most dimensions and most indicators.
The dimension of Linkages and entrepreneurship has grown strongly
at 22%. Highest growth is observed for Public-private scientific co-
publications (22%), Non-R&D innovation expenditures (20%), License
and patent revenues from abroad (19%), Innovative SMEs collaborating
with others (12%) and SMEs with marketing or organisational
innovations (12%). A strong decline in performance is only observed
for Community designs (-23%).
Notes: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100. No data for Most cited scientific publications, Venture capital investments, PCT patent
applications, PCT patent applications in societal challenges and Employment in fast-growing firms of innovative sectors.
Serbia
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
78
Turkey is a Modest innovator. Innovation performance has been
improving at a steady rate between 2007 and 2013, and for 2014 a
sharp increase can be observed. Turkey is catching up to the EU; its
relative performance has improved from 31% in 2007 to 36% in 2013
and then jumped to 46% in 2014.
Turkey is performing well below the average of the EU for all dimensions
except Firms investments - due to high relative performance in Non-R&D
innovation expenditures - and in almost all indicators. Another strong
relative performance is observed for Sales share of new innovations. The
most significant relative weaknesses are in License and patent revenues
from abroad, Public-private scientific co-publications, Community
designs and Community trademarks.
In nearly all dimensions - especially Firm investments - and most
indicators performance has improved. Particularly high growth is
observed for Non-R&D innovation expenditures (43%), Sales share of
new innovations (24%), PCT patent applications in societal challenges
(22%) and Community trademarks (14%). The few declines in
performance are minor, with the largest one in SMEs innovating in-house
(-3.1%) and Innovative SMEs collaborating with others (-3.1%).
Notes: Performance relative to the EU where the EU = 100. No data for Venture capital investments.
Turkey
79
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
7. Innovation Union Scoreboard methodology
Step 1: Identifying and replacing outliers
Positive outliers are identified as those country scores which are higher
than the mean across all countries plus 2 times the standard deviation.
Negative outliers are identied as those country scores which are
smaller than the mean across all countries minus 2 times the standard
deviation. These outliers are replaced by the respective maximum and
minimum values observed over all the years and all countries.
Step 2: Setting reference years
For each indicator a reference year is identified based on data
availability for all countries for which data availability is at least
75%. For most indicators this reference year will be lagging 1 or
2 years behind the year to which the IUS refers. Thus for the IUS
2015 the reference year will be 2012 or 2013 for most indicators
(cf. Table 1).
Step 3: Imputing for missing values
Reference year data are then used for “2014”, etc. If data for a year-
in-between is not available we substitute with the value for the
previous year. If data are not available at the beginning of the time
series, we replace missing values with the next available year. The
following examples clarify this step and show how ‘missing’ data are
imputed. If data are missing for all years, no data will be imputed
(the indicator will not contribute to the Summary Innovation Index).
7.1 How to calculate composite indicators
The overall innovation performance of each country has been summarized in a composite indicator (the Summary Innovation Index).
The methodology used for calculating this composite innovation indicator will be explained in detail.
LATEST YEAR MISSING “2014” “2013” “2012” “2011” “2010”
Available data N/A 45 40 35 30
Use most recent year 45 45 40 35 30
YEARINBETWEEN MISSING “2014” “2013” “2012” “2011” “2010”
Available data 50 N/A 40 35 30
Substitute with previous year 50 40 40 35 30
BEGINNINGOFPERIOD MISSING “2014” “2013” “2012” “2011” “2010”
Available data 50 45 40 35 N/A
Substitute with next available year 50 45 40 35 35
Step 4: Determining Maximum and Minimum scores
The Maximum score is the highest score found for the whole time
period within all countries excluding positive outliers. Similarly, the
Minimum score is the lowest score found for the whole time period
within all countries excluding negative outliers.
Step 5: Transforming data if data are highly skewed
Most of the indicators are fractional indicators with values between
0% and 100%. Some indicators are unbound indicators, where values
are not limited to an upper threshold. These indicators can be highly
volatile and can have skewed data distributions (where most countries
show low performance levels and a few countries show exceptionally
high performance levels). For the following indicators data have been
transformed using a square root transformation: Venture capital
investments, Public-private co-publications, PCT patent applications,
PCT patent applications in societal challenges, Community trademarks
and License and patent revenues from abroad. A square root
transformation means using the square root of the indicator value
instead of the original value.
Step 6: Calculating re-scaled scores
Re-scaled scores of the country scores (aer correcting for outliers and
a possible transformation of the data) for all years are calculated by
first subtracting the Minimum score and then dividing by the difference
between the Maximum and Minimum score. The maximum re-scaled
score is thus equal to 1 and the minimum re-scaled score is equal to
0. For positive and negative outliers the re-scaled score is equal to 1
or 0, respectively.
Step 7: Calculating composite innovation indexes
For each year a composite Summary Innovation Index is calculated as
the unweighted average of the re-scaled scores for all indicators where
all indicators receive the same weight (1/25 if data are available for
all 25 indicators).
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
80
Compared to last year countries’ performance levels have changed. A
direct comparison between the innovation index scores in this year’s
report and the IUS 2014 is however not possible for several reasons.
First, the IUS 2014 indicator measuring the contribution of medium and
high-tech product exports to the trade balance has been replaced with the
share of medium and high-tech product exports out of total product exports.
The impact on the innovation index varies from a positive impact for 15
and a negative impact for 17 countries (Table 5, column 5). In particular
Luxembourg, Malta, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary and Slovakia benet
from revising the indicator whereas for Cyprus, Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia and Greece the innovation index declines most. The impact on
countries’ rank performance is more moderate with a positive impact for 4
and a negative impact for 5 countries (Table 5, column 6).
Second, the data source for medium and high-tech product exports for the EU
Member States has been changed from UN ComTrade to ComExt, Eurostat's
reference database for external trade. The impact on the innovation index
varies from a positive impact for 12 and a negative impact for 20 countries
(Table 5, column 9). But changes are more minor with Malta, Luxembourg
and Denmark beneting most whereas for the Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia the innovation index declines most. The impact on countries’
rank performance is moderate with a positive impact for 2 and a negative
impact for 2 countries (Table 5, column 10).
Thirdly, including the financial sector in the indicator on employment in
fast-growing firms of innovative sectors has a positive impact on the
innovation index of 16 countries and a negative impact on the index of
15 countries (Table 5, column 13). The highest positive impact on the
innovation index is for Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Sweden, the highest
negative impact is for Poland, Ireland, Bulgaria and Czech Republic. The
impact on countries’ rank performance is more moderate with a positive
impact for 6 and a negative impact for 6 countries (Table 5, column 14).
A fourth change in the methodology is the inclusion of “Other” innovation
expenditures in Non-R&D innovation expenditures. As this component
was not included before, adding this component will increase the value
for the indicator and there is no negative impact on innovation index
scores (Table 5, column 17). There is a very small impact on countries’
rank performance with a positive impact for 1 (Spain) and a negative
impact for 1 country (Serbia) (Table 5, column 18).
Another change (although not a change in the methodology) is the
impact of the revised GDP data on 8 indicators using revised GDP data
following the adaptation of a revised European System of National
and Regional Accounts (ESA 2010). Performance for 28 countries has
improved in particular for Estonia, Luxembourg and Switzerland (Table 5,
column 21). Performance for 6 countries has worsened with the highest
negative impact for the Netherlands, Ireland and Cyprus. There is only a
moderate impact on countries’ rank performance with a positive impact
for 2 and a negative impact for 2 countries (Table 5, column 22).
The results for the different changes in the table cannot be added to
arrive at the overall impact of the above-mentioned changes.
7.2 How to calculate growth rates
Average annual growth rates of the Summary Innovation Index, the
innovation dimensions and the individual indicators as calculated using
the following formula where the number of years equals 7 (i.e. the number
of yearly changes between 2007 and 2014):
7.3 Impact of changes in the methodology on innovation index
1. Calculate normalised scores for all indicators as follows:
Yi = ((Xi - smallest X for all countries) / (largest X for all countries – smallest X for all countries)) such that all normalised scores are between 0 and 1
2. Calculate the arithmetic average over these index scores (CIi)
3. Calculate performance relative to that of the EU: CIi* = 100*CIi/CIEU
Note that the results for country i depend on the data from the other countries as the smallest and largest scores used in the normalisation
procedure are calculated over all countries.
7.4 International benchmarking
The methodology for calculating average innovation performance for the EU and its major global competitors is similar to that used for
calculating average innovation performance for the EU Member States:
81
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
IUS 2015
CONTRIBUTION MED & HITECH PRODUCT
EXPORTS TO TRADE BALANCE INSTEAD
OF EXPORT SHARE MEDIUM & HITECH
PRODUCTS
USE COMTRADE AS SOURCE
INSTEAD OF COMEXT FOR MED &
HITECH PRODUCT
EXPORTS
EMPLOYMENT FAST GROWING
FIRMS INNOVATIVE SECTORS 
EXCLUDE FINANCIAL SECTOR
NONR&D INNOVATION EXPEN
DITURES  EXCLUDE OTHER
EXPENDITURES
GDP DATA NOT REVISED
SII rank SII rank change
SII
rank
change SII rank change
SII
rank
change SII rank change
SII
rank
change SII rank change
SII
rank
change rank change
SII
rank
change
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22)
EU28 0,555 0,550 0,005 0,559 -0,004 0,558 -0,003 0,550 0,005 0,552 0,003
BE 0,619 11 0,621 11 -0,001 0 0,620 11 0,000 0 0,604 11 0,016 0 0,618 11 0,002 0 0,617 11 0,003 0
BG 0,229 33 0,230 33 -0,002 0 0,229 33 0,000 0 0,241 32 -0,012 -1 0,228 33 0,000 0 0,228 33 0,001 0
CZ 0,447 17 0,440 19 0,007 2 0,448 17 -0,001 0 0,458 17 -0,011 0 0,445 17 0,002 0 0,447 17 0,000 0
DK 0,736 3 0,729 3 0,007 0 0,733 3 0,004 0 0,722 3 0,014 0 0,732 3 0,004 0 0,732 3 0,004 0
DE 0,676 5 0,678 5 -0,001 0 0,676 5 0,001 0 0,673 4 0,003 -1 0,664 5 0,012 0 0,672 5 0,004 0
EE 0,489 15 0,484 15 0,005 0 0,487 15 0,002 0 0,488 15 0,001 0 0,487 15 0,002 0 0,484 15 0,005 0
IE 0,628 9 0,628 9 0,000 0 0,629 9 -0,001 0 0,646 6 -0,018 -3 0,627 9 0,001 0 0,630 9 -0,002 0
EL 0,365 25 0,372 24 -0,008 -1 0,365 25 -0,001 0 0,370 25 -0,006 0 0,363 25 0,001 0 0,363 25 0,002 0
ES 0,385 22 0,389 21 -0,004 -1 0,386 21 -0,001 -1 0,385 23 0,001 1 0,384 23 0,002 1 0,383 23 0,002 1
FR 0,591 12 0,591 12 0,000 0 0,592 12 -0,001 0 0,593 12 -0,002 0 0,589 12 0,001 0 0,587 12 0,003 0
HR 0,313 27 0,318 27 -0,005 0 0,314 27 -0,001 0 0,312 28 0,001 1 0,311 27 0,002 0 0,312 27 0,002 0
IT 0,439 19 0,445 18 -0,006 -1 0,440 19 -0,001 0 0,440 19 -0,001 0 0,435 19 0,003 0 0,438 19 0,001 0
CY 0,445 18 0,457 17 -0,012 -1 0,446 18 -0,001 0 0,455 18 -0,010 0 0,443 18 0,002 0 0,447 18 -0,002 0
LV 0,272 30 0,273 30 -0,001 0 0,271 30 0,001 0 0,267 30 0,005 0 0,272 30 0,000 0 0,269 30 0,003 0
LT 0,283 29 0,287 29 -0,004 0 0,283 29 0,000 0 0,283 29 0,000 0 0,280 29 0,002 0 0,280 29 0,002 0
LU 0,642 7 0,629 8 0,013 1 0,630 8 0,011 1 0,640 8 0,001 1 0,641 7 0,000 0 0,636 8 0,005 1
HU 0,369 24 0,362 25 0,007 1 0,369 24 0,000 0 0,379 24 -0,010 0 0,367 24 0,002 0 0,366 24 0,003 0
MT 0,397 21 0,389 22 0,008 1 0,384 22 0,012 1 0,404 21 -0,008 0 0,395 21 0,002 0 0,395 21 0,002 0
NL 0,647 6 0,649 6 -0,002 0 0,647 6 0,000 0 0,639 9 0,008 3 0,647 6 0,001 0 0,651 6 -0,003 0
AT 0,585 13 0,582 13 0,003 0 0,584 13 0,001 0 0,580 13 0,005 0 0,584 13 0,001 0 0,582 13 0,003 0
PL 0,313 28 0,308 28 0,004 0 0,313 28 -0,001 0 0,337 27 -0,024 -1 0,310 28 0,002 0 0,310 28 0,003 0
PT 0,403 20 0,407 20 -0,004 0 0,404 20 -0,001 0 0,405 20 -0,002 0 0,401 20 0,002 0 0,402 20 0,001 0
RO 0,204 34 0,198 34 0,006 0 0,204 34 0,000 0 0,210 34 -0,005 0 0,204 34 0,001 0 0,203 34 0,001 0
SI 0,534 14 0,536 14 -0,002 0 0,535 14 -0,001 0 0,537 14 -0,003 0 0,531 14 0,003 0 0,530 14 0,003 0
SK 0,360 26 0,354 26 0,007 0 0,361 26 -0,001 0 0,368 26 -0,007 0 0,360 26 0,000 0 0,359 26 0,001 0
FI 0,676 4 0,681 4 -0,005 0 0,678 4 -0,002 0 0,665 5 0,012 1 0,675 4 0,001 0 0,674 4 0,003 0
SE 0,740 2 0,737 2 0,003 0 0,739 2 0,001 0 0,728 2 0,012 0 0,738 2 0,002 0 0,737 2 0,003 0
UK 0,636 8 0,632 7 0,004 -1 0,634 7 0,003 -1 0,642 7 -0,006 -1 0,634 8 0,002 0 0,637 7 -0,001 -1
TR 0,257 31 0,256 31 0,001 0 0,257 31 -0,001 0 0,253 31 0,004 0 0,257 31 0,000 0 0,255 31 0,002 0
IS 0,624 10 0,624 10 0,000 0 0,624 10 0,000 0 0,620 10 0,004 0 0,624 10 0,000 0 0,622 10 0,001 0
NO 0,479 16 0,479 16 0,000 0 0,479 16 0,000 0 0,477 16 0,002 0 0,477 16 0,002 0 0,475 16 0,004 0
CH 0,810 1 0,811 1 -0,001 0 0,810 1 0,000 0 0,806 1 0,004 0 0,810 1 0,000 0 0,804 1 0,006 0
MK 0,235 32 0,247 32 -0,012 0 0,247 32 -0,012 0 0,235 33 0,000 1 0,235 32 0,000 0 0,235 32 0,000 0
RS 0,385 23 0,383 23 0,002 0 0,383 23 0,002 0 0,385 22 0,000 -1 0,385 22 0,000 -1 0,387 22 -0,001 -1
Table 5: Impact of changes in methodology on countries’ innovation index scores and ranks
positive impact negative impact of the respective change in the methodology to calculate the Summary Innovation Index on respectively each country's index score and its rank.
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
82
Annex A: Current performance
EU28 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU
ENABLERS
Human resources
1.1.1 New doctorate graduates 1,8 1,6 1,0 1,7 2,4 2,7 1,0 2,0 1,1 1,4 1,7 2,3 1,6 0,3 1,0 1,1 0,7 0,9
1.1.2 Population completed tertiary education 36,9 42,7 29,4 26,7 43,4 33,1 43,7 52,6 34,6 42,3 44,0 25,9 22,4 47,8 40,7 51,3 52,5 31,9
1.1.3 Youth with upper secondary level education 81,0 83,1 86,0 90,9 71,8 76,8 84,2 89,4 86,5 63,8 86,4 95,0 77,9 89,5 85,7 90,0 76,9 84,3
Open, excellent and attractive research systems
1.2.1 International scientific co-publications 363 1380 226 598 1916 784 864 1194 620 660 745 453 574 1142 213 324 1669 432
1.2.2 Scientific publications among top 10% most cited 11,0 13,4 3,3 5,6 14,6 11,7 8,5 11,5 9,2 10,4 10,4 3,2 10,6 7,1 3,0 6,1 12,2 5,3
1.2.3 Non-EU doctorate students 25,5 22,0 3,1 4,4 18,4 11,3 4,7 18,4 1,0 20,4 35,4 2,7 9,0 2,3 1,5 0,1 20,3 3,0
Finance and support
1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sector 0,72 0,69 0,25 0,87 1,04 0,94 0,90 0,43 0,50 0,58 0,75 0,41 0,54 0,34 0,43 0,71 0,45 0,41
1.3.2 Venture capital investments 0,062 0,089 0,002 0,002 0,097 0,041 n/a 0,049 0,000 0,028 0,081 n/a 0,015 n/a n/a n/a 0,188 0,045
FIRM ACTIVITIES
Firm investments
2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the business sector 1,29 1,58 0,40 1,03 1,99 1,99 0,83 1,14 0,27 0,66 1,44 0,41 0,67 0,07 0,17 0,24 0,71 0,98
2.1.2 Non-R&D innovation expenditure 0,69 0,60 0,49 0,73 0,37 1,35 1,55 0,39 0,87 0,31 0,37 0,95 0,57 0,58 1,38 1,10 0,14 0,70
Linkages & entrepreneurship
2.2.1 SMEs innovating in-house 28,7 37,4 11,6 27,3 30,4 38,6 27,4 38,8 26,6 15,5 28,8 19,3 36,6 27,9 13,8 13,8 37,2 10,6
2.2.2 Innovative SMEs collaborating with others 10,3 22,9 2,3 11,6 17,3 11,5 15,8 12,0 12,4 6,0 11,5 7,5 4,8 15,3 4,5 7,5 8,9 5,6
2.2.3 Public-private co-publications 50,3 94,6 4,3 25,1 193,0 73,2 16,9 33,1 16,5 28,1 51,3 30,0 29,7 21,2 1,5 7,2 37,6 26,8
Intellectual Assets
2.3.1 PCT patent applications 3,78 3,64 0,50 0,79 6,93 6,89 1,61 2,67 0,35 1,57 4,19 0,57 2,02 0,67 0,80 0,34 1,97 1,49
2.3.2 PCT patent applications in societal challenges 0,98 0,87 0,11 0,20 2,67 1,70 0,25 0,92 0,14 0,50 0,92 0,22 0,47 0,32 0,39 0,03 0,74 0,42
2.3.3 Community trademarks 5,83 5,19 5,24 3,89 7,47 7,49 9,83 5,84 2,73 7,16 3,96 1,24 5,24 18,64 3,47 4,13 29,29 2,42
2.3.4 Community designs 1,13 1,03 1,20 1,14 2,20 1,32 1,64 0,50 0,24 0,79 1,01 0,15 1,16 1,07 0,62 0,46 2,44 0,34
OUTPUTS
Innovators
3.1.1 SMEs introducing product or process innovations 30,6 42,3 13,6 30,9 33,9 42,4 33,0 35,7 29,6 18,4 32,4 21,6 38,8 29,2 15,7 16,1 43,1 12,8
3.1.2 SMEs introducing marketing/organisational innovations 36,2 36,7 17,6 30,2 40,4 46,2 31,2 49,6 45,0 22,6 41,2 30,4 44,7 35,6 23,1 25,2 52,1 25,3
3.1.3 Employment fast-growing firms innovative sectors 17,9 15,6 16,2 18,7 18,5 19,1 14,7 21,8 16,8 15,9 20,8 15,0 15,3 16,7 11,3 12,3 18,8 19,1
Economic effects
3.2.1 Employment in knowledge-intensive activities 13,8 15,3 9,1 12,9 15,2 14,6 11,9 20,1 12,5 12,5 13,8 10,4 13,4 17,2 10,8 9,0 26,2 12,8
3.2.2 Medium & high-tech product exports 53,0 45,9 26,8 62,5 43,9 65,9 42,7 47,0 18,0 46,0 56,7 37,6 50,4 43,0 30,3 31,1 49,3 66,3
3.2.3 Knowledge-intensive services exports 49,5 42,9 28,6 35,2 68,1 58,1 42,5 76,1 53,9 30,0 41,1 17,6 33,3 40,2 35,6 14,2 73,6 28,8
3.2.4 Sales of new to market and new to firm innovations 12,4 11,2 4,2 13,4 22,1 13,0 7,8 9,3 11,8 14,3 13,5 10,0 11,0 11,4 5,0 5,5 7,9 9,7
3.2.5 License and patent revenues from abroad 0,65 0,63 0,05 0,13 0,70 0,78 0,04 2,28 0,02 0,07 0,42 0,04 0,18 0,01 0,04 0,07 1,22 0,89
83
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
EU28 MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK TR IS NO CH RS MK
ENABLERS
Human resources
1.1.1 New doctorate graduates 1,8 0,2 2,0 2,2 0,6 2,1 1,8 1,9 2,4 2,7 2,8 2,4 0,4 0,9 2,2 3,4 0,8 0,5
1.1.2 Population completed tertiary education 36,9 26,0 43,1 27,3 40,5 29,2 22,8 40,1 26,9 45,1 48,3 47,6 19,5 43,9 48,8 46,1 24,7 23,1
1.1.3 Youth with upper secondary level education 81,0 76,1 78,2 87,4 89,7 69,9 79,7 91,5 91,2 85,9 86,2 82,9 55,0 59,1 73,7 85,2 83,4 86,4
Open, excellent and attractive research systems
1.2.1 International scientific co-publications 363 467 1525 1314 237 803 188 1096 427 1490 1791 1070 89 2825 1844 3028 326 157
1.2.2 Scientific publications among top 10% most cited 11,0 5,3 15,6 11,1 3,8 9,9 3,5 6,9 4,2 11,5 12,7 13,4 7,0 11,6 11,5 16,5 n/a 3,8
1.2.3 Non-EU doctorate students 25,5 2,6 24,5 9,0 1,9 13,7 2,0 6,1 1,5 7,9 24,0 30,8 2,5 23,9 33,5 50,2 7,1 3,9
Finance and support
1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sector 0,72 0,39 0,84 0,86 0,48 0,59 0,27 0,61 0,44 1,01 1,01 0,55 0,50 1,10 0,81 0,90 0,68 0,20
1.3.2 Venture capital investments 0,062 n/a 0,068 0,017 0,036 0,042 0,008 n/a n/a 0,083 0,078 0,119 n/a n/a 0,084 0,065 n/a n/a
FIRM ACTIVITIES
Firm investments
2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the business sector 1,29 0,46 1,14 1,93 0,38 0,65 0,12 1,98 0,38 2,29 2,19 1,05 0,42 1,33 0,89 2,17 0,23 0,02
2.1.2 Non-R&D innovation expenditure 0,69 1,20 0,18 0,46 1,04 0,60 0,30 0,48 0,79 0,37 0,79 0,30 2,59 n/a 0,24 2,01 2,82 0,90
Linkages & entrepreneurship
2.2.1 SMEs innovating in-house 28,7 29,0 38,9 31,8 10,1 33,8 10,6 25,8 15,0 36,5 38,3 n/a 22,5 n/a 20,3 45,2 25,2 11,3
2.2.2 Innovative SMEs collaborating with others 10,3 5,1 14,5 15,3 3,9 6,8 1,2 14,6 6,7 14,3 12,7 22,4 4,2 17,5 7,9 9,4 7,6 9,6
2.2.3 Public-private co-publications 50,3 7,2 119,9 71,0 4,7 15,2 6,6 80,6 13,7 87,7 140,3 74,0 1,8 271,2 77,7 294,4 8,4 n/a
Intellectual Assets
2.3.1 PCT patent applications 3,78 0,22 6,00 4,96 0,42 0,67 0,20 2,79 0,50 9,37 9,16 3,17 0,46 3,24 2,80 8,51 n/a 0,05
2.3.2 PCT patent applications in societal challenges 0,98 0,00 1,73 1,09 0,09 0,18 0,05 0,90 0,11 1,65 1,88 0,85 0,14 0,81 0,57 2,47 n/a 0,00
2.3.3 Community trademarks 5,83 30,97 6,74 10,07 3,61 4,98 1,85 5,41 2,55 6,57 7,30 5,80 0,48 10,06 1,47 11,62 0,86 0,48
2.3.4 Community designs 1,13 1,72 1,48 1,65 1,62 0,87 0,19 1,82 0,51 1,82 1,99 0,97 0,07 0,50 0,18 0,93 0,01 0,03
OUTPUTS
Innovators
3.1.1 SMEs introducing product or process innovations 30,6 32,0 40,9 35,7 13,1 38,3 5,2 32,6 17,7 40,1 39,9 27,8 24,0 54,2 22,5 32,6 28,6 39,2
3.1.2 SMEs introducing marketing/organisational innovations 36,2 43,3 35,2 44,7 14,2 42,8 18,1 35,9 26,2 37,0 38,2 39,1 43,2 46,0 32,4 n/a 40,6 30,8
3.1.3 Employment fast-growing firms innovative sectors 17,9 17,5 16,2 17,2 19,3 14,7 16,0 15,3 19,2 17,1 18,9 18,6 13,3 16,7 15,4 19,0 n/a n/a
Economic effects
3.2.1 Employment in knowledge-intensive activities 13,8 17,4 17,1 14,6 9,6 9,4 6,5 14,0 9,6 15,5 17,7 17,8 5,3 17,2 15,8 20,4 14,4 6,2
3.2.2 Medium & high-tech product exports 53,0 55,6 42,1 56,6 48,6 35,2 50,7 54,6 63,6 38,7 52,5 47,8 36,7 10,1 12,5 64,5 41,1 45,6
3.2.3 Knowledge-intensive services exports 49,5 19,6 30,6 26,6 33,6 33,5 49,2 25,7 31,3 43,9 41,8 66,4 22,9 53,6 61,2 25,0 47,7 24,6
3.2.4 Sales of new to market and new to firm innovations 12,4 10,2 11,8 9,8 6,3 12,4 3,7 10,5 19,6 11,1 6,1 14,1 33,6 6,1 5,2 16,1 12,4 9,9
3.2.5 License and patent revenues from abroad 0,65 0,21 3,75 0,24 0,06 0,02 0,06 0,12 0,01 1,39 1,09 0,46 0,00 0,92 0,08 3,24 0,09 0,09
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
84
Annex B: Growth performance
EU28 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU
ENABLERS
Human resources
1.1.1 New doctorate graduates 2,6% 4,2% 10,4% 6,4% 9,2% 0,5% 5,2% 7,6% 6,7% 6,5% 5,1% 18,5% 5,5% 0,0% 14,0% 6,7% -1,9% 3,7%
1.1.2 Population completed tertiary education 3,6% 0,4% 2,2% 10,7% 1,9% 3,6% 4,3% 3,5% 3,8% 1,0% 1,5% 6,5% 3,4% 0,5% 1,8% 3,8% 1,7% 7,7%
1.1.3 Youth with upper secondary level education 0,5% 0,1% 0,9% -0,1% 0,5% 0,9% 0,3% 0,6% 0,9% 0,5% 0,5% 0,1% 0,4% 1,0% 0,9% 0,4% 0,0% 0,2%
Open, excellent and attractive research systems
1.2.1 International scientific co-publications 6,7% 6,5% 3,5% 7,9% 8,3% 6,0% 12,3% 7,7% 8,7% 9,4% 5,5% 12,2% 7,2% 14,4% 7,6% 9,8% 23,1% 4,6%
1.2.2 Scientific publications among top 10% most cited 1,5% 2,9% 0,4% 4,6% 1,8% 1,1% 4,0% 1,7% 4,7% 5,0% 1,8% 4,6% 2,9% -3,0% 6,3% 11,1% 16,5% 1,5%
1.2.3 Non-EU doctorate students 3,5% 2,4% -5,6% 4,3% 6,2% 0,1% 25,8% -2,6% 0,0% 4,8% 3,5% 8,1% 19,1% 28,1% 32,0% -9,7% -0,1% -1,1%
Finance and support
1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sector 1,9% 3,6% -3,9% 8,2% 5,0% 3,5% 6,0% 0,7% 2,2% 1,6% -0,4% -1,9% 0,5% 3,3% 3,9% 3,2% 1,0% -2,5%
1.3.2 Venture capital investments -7,9% -2,6% -28,0% -29,7% -0,8% -5,2% n/a 1,9% -34,5% -16,9% -2,6% n/a -13,0% n/a n/a n/a -13,3% 7,3%
FIRM ACTIVITIES
Firm investments
2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the business sector 1,9% 3,4% 18,8% 4,8% 1,8% 2,1% 7,5% 5,2% 2,3% -1,2% 1,6% 6,1% 3,4% -3,5% -9,0% 1,3% -9,8% 10,7%
2.1.2 Non-R&D innovation expenditure 1,9% 2,0% -6,8% -2,7% -4,4% 6,3% -10,4% -12,1% 2,5% -7,9% -3,1% 1,5% -1,0% -17,0% 2,0% 8,0% -23,3% -0,5%
Linkages & entrepreneurship
2.2.1 SMEs innovating in-house -0,8% -1,3% -3,7% -0,3% 0,0% -2,6% -4,2% 0,0% -2,9% -6,4% -0,6% -3,3% 1,0% -4,1% -0,6% -3,5% -0,1% -2,5%
2.2.2 Innovative SMEs collaborating with others 2,5% 4,7% -6,9% -0,1% 2,1% 3,7% -1,9% 0,4% -1,0% 2,6% -2,3% -3,6% 1,7% -7,4% -3,0% -4,4% -7,3% -2,1%
2.2.3 Public-private co-publications 2,3% 1,3% 14,4% 7,9% 2,9% 2,7% -1,1% 5,9% 0,6% 4,2% 1,3% 9,5% 1,5% 15,9% -2,8% 8,8% 9,7% 3,1%
Intellectual Assets
2.3.1 PCT patent applications -0,4% 0,6% 3,5% 1,9% -0,6% -1,2% 6,9% 1,9% 4,0% 3,6% 1,1% -11,9% 1,1% 18,7% 2,5% 3,2% -0,3% 1,3%
2.3.2 PCT patent applications in societal challenges 2,0% 0,2% 2,9% -1,9% -0,3% 2,4% 17,9% 3,8% 20,3% 6,2% 2,4% -5,2% 1,0% 62,7% 4,5% -11,2% 13,0% -2,2%
2.3.3 Community trademarks 5,1% 5,5% 28,5% 15,5% 3,3% 4,8% 21,9% 4,5% 11,3% 3,3% 3,7% 26,0% 4,4% 14,4% 16,8% 18,4% 7,8% 10,2%
2.3.4 Community designs 1,7% 0,7% 60,8% 10,0% 0,3% -0,1% 24,0% 2,9% 30,4% -2,2% 0,7% 12,2% 0,2% 13,0% 0,6% 18,5% 10,0% 5,6%
OUTPUTS
Innovators
3.1.1 SMEs introducing product or process innovations -1,7% -1,0% -3,8% -0,5% -0,7% -3,1% -4,6% -2,9% -3,2% -6,5% 0,1% -3,8% 2,3% -3,6% 1,2% -2,9% -0,5% -3,8%
3.1.2 SMEs introducing marketing/organisational innovations -3,3% -2,6% 1,6% -2,6% -1,6% -5,4% -6,1% 2,8% -1,8% -4,1% 1,0% -3,2% 1,4% -5,0% 7,5% -1,7% -2,1% -0,6%
3.1.3 Employment fast-growing firms innovative sectors 0,5% -1,5% 1,2% 1,9% -1,6% -0,4% 0,3% 0,2% -0,1% -0,6% 0,8% 0,0% -1,6% -1,5% -2,9% -1,4% -5,0% 0,7%
Economic effects
3.2.1 Employment in knowledge-intensive activities 0,6% 0,4% 1,5% 2,0% 0,4% -0,3% 3,3% 0,7% 2,1% 0,8% 0,6% 1,3% -0,2% 2,8% 4,2% 2,6% 0,8% 0,0%
3.2.2 Medium & high-tech product exports -0,8% -1,1% 3,0% 0,2% 1,0% 0,1% 2,0% -1,3% -6,4% -1,8% -0,6% -0,7% -0,3% -1,2% 2,3% -0,9% -2,3% -1,1%
3.2.3 Knowledge-intensive services exports 0,7% -0,2% 8,1% -0,9% 0,5% 1,4% 3,1% 0,0% 0,6% 0,0% 3,3% 2,4% -0,5% 2,8% -0,5% -1,4% -1,0% 3,3%
3.2.4 Sales of new to market and new to firm innovations -0,8% 2,8% -12,0% -1,3% 11,2% -5,5% -7,7% -4,2% -10,5% -1,4% 0,2% -3,7% 2,8% -1,1% 5,9% -11,1% -6,2% -4,1%
3.2.5 License and patent revenues from abroad 9,8% 7,8% 7,7% 31,1% 1,9% 18,8% 1,2% 28,2% -1,1% -1,0% 6,8% -11,0% 18,5% -31,7% -2,1% 61,1% 3,8% 9,2%
85
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
EU28 MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK TR IS NO CH RS MK
ENABLERS
Human resources
1.1.1 New doctorate graduates 2,6% 10,4% 6,3% 1,4% -7,0% -3,0% 6,0% 6,8% 10,4% -2,0% 2,2% 2,6% 10,4% 17,0% 7,8% 0,4% 7,9% 7,6%
1.1.2 Population completed tertiary education 3,6% 3,3% 0,6% 3,7% 7,3% 6,8% 9,1% 5,2% 9,3% -0,3% 2,9% 3,9% 7,3% 2,7% 2,2% 4,0% 6,1% 10,3%
1.1.3 Youth with upper secondary level education 0,5% 3,6% 0,1% 0,3% -0,3% 1,2% 0,5% 0,3% 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,7% 2,6% 2,6% 1,0% 1,3% 0,0% 1,9%
Open, excellent and attractive research systems
1.2.1 International scientific co-publications 6,7% 11,3% 7,8% 7,8% 4,2% 13,0% 11,7% 9,3% 7,6% 7,1% 6,3% 5,8% 10,8% 10,8% 10,1% 8,0% 3,5% 3,3%
1.2.2 Scientific publications among top 10% most cited 1,5% 46,3% 2,0% 1,9% 3,2% 4,5% 3,2% 5,9% 6,7% -0,6% -0,1% 1,0% 9,1% 0,4% 1,4% 1,9% n/a 18,3%
1.2.3 Non-EU doctorate students 3,5% 4,7% 2,3% 3,6% -4,4% 13,0% -5,1% 11,3% 14,4% 10,4% 8,8% 1,6% -1,9% 9,5% 6,3% 2,1% -2,5% 2,3%
Finance and support
1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sector 1,9% 10,0% 0,3% 3,2% 3,8% -0,5% -2,0% -0,7% 7,2% 1,0% 2,0% -1,2% 4,4% 0,0% 0,9% 4,5% -1,2% 1,5%
1.3.2 Venture capital investments -7,9% n/a -6,1% -3,6% -0,1% -7,8% -20,4% n/a n/a -3,8% -13,7% -10,2% n/a n/a -5,4% -11,5% n/a n/a
FIRM ACTIVITIES
Firm investments
2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the business sector 1,9% 2,8% 2,5% 2,1% 12,2% 5,7% -5,6% 1,5% 8,8% -0,5% -2,5% 0,4% 10,4% 0,1% 1,7% 0,4% 6,3% 0,0%
2.1.2 Non-R&D innovation expenditure 1,9% 1,3% -6,5% -0,4% 1,2% -6,4% -16,9% -11,5% -8,8% -5,8% 2,7% 0,0% 42,6% n/a 12,6% 8,2% 19,7% 0,0%
Linkages & entrepreneurship
2.2.1 SMEs innovating in-house -0,8% 4,3% 5,2% -3,6% -7,3% -0,1% -7,3% 0,0% -2,5% -1,6% 0,5% n/a -3,1% n/a -3,4% 7,0% -1,4% 0,0%
2.2.2 Innovative SMEs collaborating with others 2,5% -1,6% 2,1% -2,4% -11,9% 0,2% -11,8% -0,5% -1,0% -8,9% -3,7% 11,1% -3,1% 0,0% -2,9% 0,0% 11,7% 0,0%
2.2.3 Public-private co-publications 2,3% 28,5% 4,6% 4,6% 8,7% 7,4% 13,8% 8,8% 8,7% -0,7% -0,5% 0,5% 3,3% 7,9% 4,7% 3,2% 22,0% n/a
Intellectual Assets
2.3.1 PCT patent applications -0,4% -8,6% -1,5% 0,9% 6,0% 15,0% 1,5% 3,0% 0,3% -2,4% 0,9% -1,7% 4,9% -4,1% -3,7% -0,6% n/a -10,0%
2.3.2 PCT patent applications in societal challenges 2,0% -3,3% 9,0% 3,2% -0,5% 22,1% -1,1% 2,7% -1,9% 6,9% -1,6% -1,1% 22,1% -10,5% -1,4% 0,6% n/a 4,9%
2.3.3 Community trademarks 5,1% 20,9% 4,8% 6,4% 9,7% 3,1% 21,8% 25,0% 17,5% 7,1% 5,8% 4,6% 14,4% 16,7% 6,8% 2,7% 9,5% 19,7%
2.3.4 Community designs 1,7% 31,1% 0,3% 2,9% 12,1% 4,4% 29,0% 15,2% 6,5% 4,9% 1,9% 2,6% -1,8% 5,9% -10,0% -8,6% -23,3% 0,0%
OUTPUTS
Innovators
3.1.1 SMEs introducing product or process innovations -1,7% 3,1% 3,1% -4,1% -6,2% -0,2% -17,2% 0,4% -2,7% -1,5% -0,3% 1,5% -2,9% 0,0% -4,0% -7,7% 6,6% 0,0%
3.1.2 SMEs introducing marketing/organisational innovations -3,3% 4,5% 2,8% -2,9% -9,7% -3,1% -9,1% -1,3% -1,1% -1,1% 0,6% 3,7% -2,2% 0,0% 0,7% n/a 12,3% 0,0%
3.1.3 Employment fast-growing firms innovative sectors 0,5% 0,3% -0,8% 1,0% 1,6% 0,5% 0,7% 0,1% -0,1% -1,1% -1,5% 1,6% 0,2% -0,5% -1,7% 0,1% n/a n/a
Economic effects
3.2.1 Employment in knowledge-intensive activities 0,6% 1,5% 1,7% 0,8% 0,9% 0,9% 2,2% 2,0% -0,7% 0,0% 0,9% 0,8% 1,4% -0,7% 2,0% 0,6% 3,2% -2,1%
3.2.2 Medium & high-tech product exports -0,8% -4,3% -1,2% 0,2% -0,2% -2,0% 4,5% 0,3% 1,6% -3,7% -1,7% -3,5% -1,1% -6,2% 1,3% 0,8% 9,6% 10,1%
3.2.3 Knowledge-intensive services exports 0,7% 0,9% -4,1% 1,8% 3,3% 5,1% 2,1% 3,4% 9,2% 7,4% -0,7% 0,4% 7,5% 0,3% 2,1% -5,6% 0,3% -2,7%
3.2.4 Sales of new to market and new to firm innovations -0,8% -11,4% 1,2% -4,6% -6,5% -1,0% -20,6% -3,3% 2,3% -4,8% -5,6% 7,5% 24,0% -9,2% 1,1% -6,1% 3,1% 0,0%
3.2.5 License and patent revenues from abroad 9,8% -14,9% 14,7% 6,2% 27,2% -9,4% 10,5% 15,8% -38,2% 16,0% 2,0% -2,8% 0,0% -8,4% -10,5% 7,4% 19,5% 11,3%
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
86
Annex C: Definitions of indicators
INDICATOR DEFINITION NUMERATOR DEFINITION
DENOMINATOR INTERPRETATION
Source Source
1.1.1 New doctorate graduates
(ISCED 6) per 1000
population aged 25-34
Number doctorate graduates
(ISCED 6)
Population between
25 and 34 years
The indicator is a measure of the supply of new
second-stage tertiary graduates in all fields of
training. For most countries ISCED 6 captures PhD
graduates only, with the exception of Finland,
Portugal and Sweden where also non-PhD degrees
leading to an award of an advanced research
qualification are included.
Eurostat Eurostat
1.1.2 Percentage population aged
30-34 having completed
tertiary education
Number of persons in age class
with completed first or second
stage of tertiary education (ISCED
5 and 6)
Population between
30 and 34 years
This is a general indicator of the supply of advanced
skills. It is not limited to science and technical fields
because the adoption of innovations in many areas,
in particular in the service sectors, depends on a
wide range of skills. International comparisons of
educational levels however are difficult due to large
discrepancies in educational systems, access, and the
level of attainment that is required to receive a tertiary
degree. The indicator focuses on a narrow share of the
population aged 30 to 34 and will more easily and
quickly reflect changes in educational policies leading
to more tertiary graduates.
Eurostat Eurostat
1.1.3 Percentage youth aged
20-24 having attained
at least upper secondary
education
Number of young people aged
20-24 years having at least upper
secondary education attainment
level, i.e. with an education level
ISCED 3a, 3b or 3c long minimum
Population between
20 and 24 years
The indicator measures the qualification level of
the population aged 20-24 years in terms of formal
educational degrees. It provides a measure for the
“supply” of human capital of that age group and
for the output of education systems in terms of
graduates. Completed upper secondary education
is generally considered to be the minimum level
required for successful participation in a knowledge-
based society and is positively linked with economic
growth.
Eurostat Eurostat
1.2.1 International scientific
co-publications per million
population
Number of scientific publications
with at least one co-author based
abroad (where abroad is non-EU
for the EU28)
Total population International scientific co-publications are a proxy
for the quality of scientific research as collaboration
increases scientific productivity.
Science-Metrix (Scopus) Eurostat
1.2.2 Scientific publications
among the top-10% most
cited publications worldwide
as % of total scientific
publications of the country
Number of scientific publications
among the top-10% most cited
publications worldwide
Total number
of scientific
publications
The indicator is a proxy for the efficiency of the
research system as highly cited publications are
assumed to be of higher quality. There could be a bias
towards small or English speaking countries given
the coverage of Scopus’ publication data. Countries
like France and Germany, where researchers publish
relatively more in their own language, are more likely
to underperform on this indicator as compared to
their real academic excellence.
Science-Metrix
(Scopus)
Science-Metrix
(Scopus)
1.2.3 Non-EU doctorate students
as a % of all doctorate
students
For EU Member States: number of
doctorate students from non-EU
countries (for non-EU countries:
number of non-national doctorate
students)
Total number of
doctorate students
The share of non-EU doctorate students reflects the
mobility of students as an effective way of diffusing
knowledge. Attracting high-skilled foreign doctorate
students will add to creating a net brain gain and will
secure a continuous supply of researchers.
Eurostat Eurostat
87
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the
public sector (% of GDP)
All R&D expenditures in the
government sector (GOVERD)
and the higher education sector
(HERD)
Gross Domestic
Product
R&D expenditure represents one of the major drivers
of economic growth in a knowledge-based economy.
As such, trends in the R&D expenditure indicator
provide key indications of the future competitiveness
and wealth of the EU. Research and development
spending is essential for making the transition to a
knowledge-based economy as well as for improving
production technologies and stimulating growth.
Eurostat Eurostat
1.3.2 Venture capital (% of GDP) Venture capital investment
is defined as private equity
being raised for investment in
companies. Management buyouts,
management buyins, and venture
purchase of quoted shares are
excluded. Venture capital includes
early stage (seed + start-up) and
expansion and replacement capital
Gross Domestic
Product
The amount of venture capital is a proxy for the
relative dynamism of new business creation. In
particular for enterprises using or developing new
(risky) technologies venture capital is often the
only available means of financing their (expanding)
business.
Eurostat Eurostat Comment:
Two-year averages have been used
2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the
business sector (% of GDP)
All R&D expenditures in the
business sector (BERD)
Gross Domestic
Product
The indicator captures the formal creation of new
knowledge within firms. It is particularly important in
the science-based sector (pharmaceuticals, chemicals
and some areas of electronics) where most new
knowledge is created in or near R&D laboratories.
Eurostat Eurostat
2.1.2 Non-R&D innovation
expenditures (% of turnover)
Sum of total innovation
expenditure for enterprises, in
thousand Euros and current
prices excluding intramural and
extramural R&D expenditures
Total turnover for all
enterprises
This indicator measures non-R&D innovation
expenditure as percentage of total turnover. Several
of the components of innovation expenditure, such
as investment in equipment and machinery and the
acquisition of patents and licenses, measure the
diffusion of new production technology and ideas.
Eurostat (CIS) Eurostat (CIS)
2.2.1 SMEs innovating in-house
(% of SMEs) 14
Sum of SMEs with in-house
innovation activities. Innovative
firms are defined as those firms
which have introduced new
products or processes either 1)
in-house or 2) in combination with
other firms
Total number of
SMEs
This indicator measures the degree to which SMEs,
that have introduced any new or significantly
improved products or production processes, have
innovated in-house. The indicator is limited to SMEs
because almost all large firms innovate and because
countries with an industrial structure weighted
towards larger firms tend to do better.
Eurostat (CIS) Eurostat (CIS)
2.2.2 Innovative SMEs
collaborating with others
(% of SMEs)
Sum of SMEs with innovation
co-operation activities, i.e. those
firms that had any co-operation
agreements on innovation
activities with other enterprises or
institutions in the three years of
the survey period
Total number of
SMEs
This indicator measures the degree to which SMEs
are involved in innovation co-operation. Complex
innovations, in particular in ICT, often depend on the
ability to draw on diverse sources of information and
knowledge, or to collaborate on the development of
an innovation. This indicator measures the flow of
knowledge between public research institutions and
firms and between firms and other firms. The indicator
is limited to SMEs because almost all large firms are
involved in innovation co-operation.
Eurostat (CIS) Eurostat (CIS)
INDICATOR DEFINITION NUMERATOR DEFINITION
DENOMINATOR INTERPRETATION
Source Source
14
The 2010 Methodology report provides detailed instructions how to calculate this indicator using tabulated CIS data as available from Eurostat's Statistics Database
(http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-methodology-report_en.pdf).
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
88
Annex C: Definitions of indicators
INDICATOR DEFINITION NUMERATOR DEFINITION
DENOMINATOR INTERPRETATION
Source Source
2.2.3 Public-private
co-publications per million
population
Number of public-private
co-authored research publications.
The definition of the "private sector"
excludes the private medical and
health sector. Publications are
assigned to the country/countries
in which the business companies or
other private sector organisations
are located
Total population This indicator captures public-private research linkages
and active collaboration activities between business
sector researchers and public sector researchers
resulting in academic publications.
CWTS (Thomson Reuters) Eurostat
2.3.1 PCT patent applications per
billion GDP (in PPS€)
Number of patent applications
filed under the PCT, at
international phase, designating
the European Patent Office (EPO).
Patent counts are based on
the priority date, the inventor’s
country of residence and
fractional counts
Gross Domestic
Product in
Purchasing Power
Standard
The capacity of firms to develop new products will
determine their competitive advantage. One indicator
of the rate of new product innovation is the number
of patents. This indicator measures the number of
PCT patent applications.
OECD Eurostat
2.3.2 PCT patent applications
in societal challenges per
billion GDP (in PPS€)
Number of PCT patent applications
in Environment-related technologies
and Health. Patents in Environment-
related technologies include those in
General Environmental Management
(air, water, waste), Energy generation
from renewable and non-fossil
sources, Combustion technologies
with mitigation potential (e.g. using
fossil fuels, biomass, waste, etc.),
Technologies specific to climate
change mitigation, Technologies
with potential or indirect contribution
to emissions mitigation, Emissions
abatement and fuel efficiency in
transportation and Energy efficiency
in buildings and lighting. Patents
in health-related technologies
include those in Medical technology
(IPC codes (8th edition) A61[B, C,
D, F, G, H, J, L, M, N], H05G) and
Pharmaceuticals (IPC codes A61K
excluding A61K8)
Gross Domestic
Product in
Purchasing Power
Standard
This indicator measures PCT applications in health
technology and environment-related technologies
and is relevant as increased numbers of patent
applications in health technology and environment-
related technologies will be necessary to meet the
societal needs of an ageing European society and
sustainable growth.
OECD Eurostat
2.3.3 Community trademarks per
billion GDP (in PPS€)
Number of new community
trademarks applications
Gross Domestic
Product in
Purchasing Power
Standard
Trademarks are an important innovation indicator, especially
for the service sector. The Community trademark gives its
proprietor a uniform right applicable in all Member States
of the European Union through a single procedure which
simplifies trademark policies at European level. It fulfils the
three essential functions of a trademark: it identifies the
origin of goods and services, guarantees consistent quality
through evidence of the company's commitment vis-à-vis
the consumer, and is a form of communication, a basis for
publicity and advertising.
Oce for Harmonization in
the Internal Market
Eurostat Comment: two-year averages have been used
89
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
INDICATOR DEFINITION NUMERATOR DEFINITION
DENOMINATOR INTERPRETATION
Source Source
2.3.4 Community designs per
billion GDP (in PPS€)
Number of new community
designs applications
Gross Domestic
Product in
Purchasing Power
Standard
A design is the outward appearance of a product or
part of it resulting from the lines, contours, colours,
shape, texture, materials and/or its ornamentation.
A product can be any industrial or handicraft item
including packaging, graphic symbols and typographic
typefaces but excluding computer programs. It also
includes products that are composed of multiple
components, which may be disassembled and
reassembled. Community design protection is directly
enforceable in each Member State and it provides
both the option of an unregistered and a registered
Community design right for one area encompassing
all Member States.
Oce for Harmonization in
the Internal Market
Eurostat Comment:
two-year averages have been used
3.1.1 SMEs introducing product or
process innovations
(% of SMEs)
Number of SMEs who introduced
a new product or a new process
to one of their markets
Total number of
SMEs
Technological innovation, as measured by the
introduction of new products (goods or services)
and processes, is a key ingredient to innovation
in manufacturing activities. Higher shares of
technological innovators should reflect a higher level
of innovation activities.
Eurostat (CIS) Eurostat (CIS)
3.1.2 SMEs introducing marketing
or organisational innovations
(% of SMEs)
Number of SMEs who introduced
a new marketing innovation or
organisational innovation to one
of their markets
Total number of
SMEs
The Community Innovation Survey mainly asks
firms about their technological innovation. Many
firms, in particular in the services sectors, innovate
through other non-technological forms of innovation.
Examples of these are marketing and organisational
innovations. This indicator captures the extent
that SMEs innovate through non-technological
innovation.
Eurostat (CIS) Eurostat (CIS)
3.1.3 Employment in fast-growing
enterprises in innovative
sectors (% of total
employment)
Employment in fast-growing
enterprises in innovative sectors is
calculated through sector-specific
innovation coefficients, reflecting
the level of innovativeness of
each sector, serving as a proxy
for distinguishing innovative
enterprises. These coefficients
are weighted with sectoral
shares of employment in fast-
growing enterprises, providing an
indication of the dynamism of
fast-growing firms in innovative
sectors. Fast-growing enterprises
are defined as firms with average
annualised growth in number of
employees of more than 10 % a
year, over a three-year period, and
with 10 or more employees at
the beginning of the observation
period (period of growth).15
Total employment This indicator provides an indication of the dynamism
of fast-growing firms in innovative sectors as
compared to all fast-growing business activities. It
captures the capacity of a country to transform rapidly
its economy to respond to new needs and to take
advantage of emerging demand.
Eurostat Eurostat
15
The economic sectors included are the three-digit NACE business economy sectors as identified by the national statistical office based on national business register data and based on
the number of employees in these enterprises. More details are provided in section 3.4 of the Staff Working Document SWD(2013) 325 on “Developing an indicator of innovation output”
http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2013/pdf/staff_working_document_indicator_of_innovation_output.pdf
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
90
Annex C: Definitions of indicators
INDICATOR DEFINITION NUMERATOR DEFINITION
DENOMINATOR INTERPRETATION
Source Source
3.2.1 Employment in knowledge-
intensive activities (% of
total employment)
Number of employed persons in
knowledge-intensive activities in
business industries. Knowledge-
intensive activities are defined,
based on EU Labour Force Survey
data, as all NACE Rev.2 industries
at 2-digit level where at least
33% of employment has a higher
education degree (ISCED5 or
ISCED6)
Total employment Knowledge-intensive activities provide services
directly to consumers, such as telecommunications,
and provide inputs to the innovative activities of other
firms in all sectors of the economy.
Eurostat Eurostat
3.2.2 Exports of medium and
high-technology products
as a share of total product
exports
Value of medium and high-tech
exports, in national currency and
current prices. High-tech exports
include exports of the following
SITC Rev.3 products: 266,267,
512, 513, 525, 533, 54, 553,
554, 562, 57, 58, 591, 593, 597,
598, 629, 653, 671, 672, 679,
71, 72, 731, 733, 737, 74, 751,
752, 759, 76, 77, 78, 79, 812, 87,
88 and 891
Value of total
product exports
The indicator measures the technological
compe¬titiveness of the EU i.e. the ability to
commercialise the results of research and development
(R&D) and innovation in the international markets. It
also reflects product specialisation by country. Creating,
exploiting and commercialising new technologies are
vital for the competitiveness of a country in the modern
economy. Medium and high-technology products are
key drivers for economic growth, productivity and
welfare, and are generally a source of high value added
and well-paid employment.
Eurostat (ComExt) for MS, UN
ComTrade for non-MS
Eurostat (ComExt)
for MS, UN
ComTrade for
non-MS
3.2.3 Knowledge-intensive
services exports as % of
total services exports
Exports of knowledge-intensive
services are measured by the sum
of credits in EBOPS (Extended
Balance of Payments Services
Classification) 207, 208, 211,
212, 218, 228, 229, 245, 253,
260, 263, 272, 274, 278, 279,
280 and 284
Total services
exports as
measured by credits
in EBOPS 200
The indicator measures the competitiveness of the
knowledge-intensive services sector. Knowledge-
intensive services are defined as NACE classes 61-62
and 64-72. These can be related to the above-
mentioned EBOPS classes using the correspondence
table between NACE, ISIC and EBOPS as provided in
the UN Manual on Statistics of International Trade in
Services (UN, 2002).
Eurostat Eurostat
3.2.4 Sales of new-to-market and
new-to-firm innovations as
% of turnover
Sum of total turnover of new or
significantly improved products,
either new to the firm or new to
the market, for all enterprises
Total turnover for all
enterprises
This indicator measures the turnover of new or
significantly improved products and includes
both products which are only new to the firm and
products which are also new to the market. The
indicator thus captures both the creation of state-
of-the-art technologies (new to market products)
and the diffusion of these technologies (new to firm
products).
Eurostat (CIS) Eurostat (CIS)
3.2.5 License and patent revenues
from abroad as % of GDP
Export part of the international
transactions in royalties and
license fees
Gross Domestic
Product
Trade in technology comprises four main
categories: Transfer of techniques (through
patents and licences, disclosure of know-how);
Transfer (sale, licensing, franchising) of designs,
trademarks and patterns; Services with a technical
content, including technical and engineering
studies, as well as technical assistance; and
Industrial R&D. License and patent revenues
capture disembodied technology exports.
Eurostat Eurostat
91
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Annex D: Country abbreviations
AT Austria
AU Australia
BE Belgium
BG Bulgaria
BR Brazil
CA Canada
CH Switzerland
CN China
CY Cyprus
CZ Czech Republic
DE Germany
DK Denmark
EL Greece
EE Estonia
ES Spain
FI Finland
FR France
HR Croatia
HU Hungary
IE Ireland
IN India
IS Iceland
IT Italy
JP Japan
KR South Korea
LT Lithuania
LU Luxembourg
LV Latvia
MK Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
MT Malta
NL Netherlands
NO Norway
PL Poland
PT Portugal
RO Romania
RS Serbia
RU Russia
SA South Africa
SE Sweden
SI Slovenia
SK Slovakia
TR Turkey
UK United Kingdom
US United States
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
92
Annex E:
Summary Innovation Index (SII) time series
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 GROWTH
RATE
EU28 0,519 0,519 0,529 0,543 0,545 0,542 0,554 0,555 0,98%
BE 0,573 0,580 0,580 0,611 0,616 0,619 0,629 0,619 1,10%
BG 0,184 0,201 0,214 0,244 0,249 0,206 0,202 0,229 3,14%
CZ 0,373 0,382 0,387 0,425 0,436 0,421 0,438 0,447 2,61%
DK 0,647 0,659 0,673 0,697 0,696 0,713 0,729 0,736 1,87%
DE 0,650 0,655 0,667 0,689 0,685 0,690 0,690 0,676 0,58%
EE 0,420 0,424 0,466 0,470 0,498 0,503 0,523 0,489 2,18%
IE 0,570 0,571 0,591 0,603 0,619 0,611 0,615 0,628 1,39%
EL 0,362 0,374 0,385 0,382 0,380 0,391 0,394 0,365 0,10%
ES 0,396 0,398 0,403 0,399 0,402 0,411 0,408 0,385 -0,38%
FR 0,544 0,549 0,557 0,573 0,579 0,578 0,586 0,591 1,17%
HR 0,296 0,305 0,314 0,314 0,318 0,304 0,309 0,313 0,82%
IT 0,393 0,399 0,412 0,427 0,428 0,446 0,448 0,439 1,61%
CY 0,449 0,495 0,473 0,491 0,504 0,503 0,489 0,445 -0,14%
LV 0,215 0,225 0,223 0,239 0,260 0,250 0,233 0,272 3,39%
LT 0,244 0,245 0,254 0,244 0,269 0,281 0,293 0,283 2,14%
LU 0,640 0,637 0,643 0,626 0,626 0,644 0,660 0,642 0,04%
HU 0,336 0,345 0,346 0,359 0,366 0,354 0,362 0,369 1,35%
MT 0,325 0,341 0,348 0,343 0,340 0,311 0,350 0,397 2,90%
NL 0,573 0,579 0,583 0,593 0,598 0,642 0,645 0,647 1,76%
AT 0,557 0,568 0,582 0,556 0,565 0,581 0,597 0,585 0,69%
PL 0,292 0,302 0,314 0,314 0,323 0,303 0,302 0,313 0,96%
PT 0,365 0,392 0,403 0,426 0,421 0,396 0,400 0,403 1,44%
RO 0,240 0,250 0,264 0,255 0,275 0,245 0,255 0,204 -2,27%
SI 0,446 0,468 0,485 0,496 0,519 0,509 0,532 0,534 2,61%
SK 0,316 0,327 0,334 0,316 0,323 0,373 0,354 0,360 1,91%
FI 0,672 0,672 0,669 0,676 0,682 0,684 0,680 0,676 0,09%
SE 0,723 0,737 0,742 0,758 0,764 0,766 0,760 0,740 0,34%
UK 0,565 0,568 0,575 0,607 0,607 0,613 0,625 0,636 1,72%
TR 0,160 0,167 0,174 0,182 0,186 0,192 0,198 0,257 6,98%
IS 0,603 0,621 0,631 0,624 0,618 0,620 0,597 0,624 0,49%
NO 0,434 0,445 0,460 0,482 0,482 0,483 0,487 0,479 1,42%
CH 0,802 0,815 0,822 0,808 0,806 0,801 0,804 0,810 0,14%
RS 0,251 0,252 0,259 0,271 0,261 0,334 0,355 0,385 6,31%
MK 0,183 0,200 0,208 0,203 0,221 0,237 0,231 0,235 3,69%
93
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
Annex F:
Performance scores per dimension
HUMAN
RESOURCES
RESEARCH
SYSTEMS
FINANCE AND
SUPPORT
FIRM
INVESTMENTS
LINKAGES & ENTRE
PRENEURSHIP
INTELLECTUAL
ASSETS INNOVATORS ECONOMIC
EFFECTS
EU28 0,598 0,542 0,556 0,454 0,473 0,624 0,505 0,601
BE 0,643 0,743 0,591 0,494 0,818 0,588 0,522 0,556
BG 0,497 0,126 0,089 0,198 0,057 0,405 0,170 0,195
CZ 0,595 0,258 0,420 0,410 0,425 0,409 0,490 0,515
DK 0,631 0,823 0,797 0,513 0,767 0,892 0,585 0,760
DE 0,625 0,492 0,629 0,807 0,623 0,782 0,718 0,707
EE 0,597 0,370 0,837 0,614 0,465 0,596 0,375 0,374
IE 0,824 0,634 0,372 0,333 0,556 0,513 0,784 0,770
EL 0,554 0,305 0,201 0,286 0,405 0,236 0,525 0,366
ES 0,441 0,534 0,395 0,202 0,238 0,492 0,235 0,426
FR 0,694 0,677 0,611 0,393 0,494 0,582 0,659 0,572
HR 0,690 0,163 0,304 0,340 0,299 0,218 0,287 0,269
IT 0,430 0,406 0,328 0,283 0,417 0,521 0,544 0,455
CY 0,603 0,366 0,228 0,153 0,475 0,553 0,448 0,451
LV 0,586 0,102 0,326 0,415 0,088 0,368 0,091 0,261
LT 0,722 0,175 0,630 0,347 0,174 0,258 0,110 0,177
LU 0,569 0,754 0,603 0,163 0,505 0,768 0,756 0,738
HU 0,491 0,205 0,349 0,390 0,182 0,344 0,323 0,555
MT 0,292 0,209 0,283 0,427 0,276 0,507 0,556 0,472
NL 0,644 0,843 0,634 0,270 0,736 0,779 0,520 0,605
AT 0,622 0,551 0,511 0,527 0,614 0,776 0,585 0,466
PL 0,578 0,128 0,365 0,359 0,069 0,420 0,249 0,324
PT 0,466 0,480 0,441 0,288 0,380 0,384 0,504 0,319
RO 0,471 0,113 0,147 0,080 0,043 0,171 0,159 0,322
SI 0,731 0,393 0,522 0,544 0,564 0,673 0,428 0,433
SK 0,675 0,167 0,337 0,287 0,200 0,268 0,372 0,484
FI 0,806 0,581 0,756 0,581 0,668 0,856 0,560 0,594
SE 0,846 0,826 0,746 0,684 0,727 0,901 0,630 0,590
UK 0,767 0,777 0,564 0,287 0,793 0,577 0,529 0,693
TR 0,107 0,175 0,402 0,588 0,167 0,155 0,345 0,317
IS 0,359 0,813 1,000 0,577 0,875 0,569 0,727 0,483
NO 0,671 0,899 0,649 0,232 0,406 0,356 0,324 0,380
CH 0,851 1,000 0,661 0,974 0,783 0,830 0,591 0,753
RS 0,412 0,185 0,598 0,546 0,285 0,084 0,490 0,482
MK 0,395 0,133 0,076 0,239 0,210 0,048 0,506 0,283
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
94
Annex G: International data
EU28 AU BR CA CN IN JP KR RU SA US
Human resources
1.1.1 New doctorate graduates 1,8 2,0 0,5 1,3 2,2 n/a 1,1 1,5 0,4 0,2 1,8
1.1.2 Population completed tertiary education 29,5 41,3 17,2 52,6 10,6 9,8 46,6 41,7 53,5 6,4 43,1
Open, excellent and attractive research systems
1.2.1 International scientific co-publications 363,3 n/a 67,0 n/a 47,6 12,4 226,4 349,3 80,5 n/a 455,2
1.2.2 Scientific publications among top 10% most cited 11,0 n/a 5,2 n/a 6,6 6,2 7,1 9,0 1,9 n/a 14,5
Finance and support
1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sector 0,72 0,86 0,57 0,80 0,47 0,52 0,74 0,91 0,47 0,39 0,72
Firm investments
2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the business sector 1,29 1,23 0,50 0,88 1,51 0,29 2,57 2,86 0,66 0,36 1,95
Linkages & entrepreneurship
2.2.3 Public-private co-publications 50,3 36,51 1,83 50,74 2,55 0,75 51,10 54,46 1,76 3,14 87,23
Intellectual assets
2.3.1 PCT patent applications 3,75 2,38 0,09 2,66 1,29 0,05 7,95 7,95 0,39 0,71 3,74
2.3.2 PCT patent applications in societal challenges 0,93 0,68 0,03 0,75 0,17 0,02 1,80 1,80 0,10 0,16 1,09
Economic effects
3.2.2 Exports of medium & high-tech products 58,2 8,6 25,8 34,3 55,8 24,6 72,6 70,8 9,8 29,5 49,4
3.2.3 Exports of knowledge-intensive services 56,0 10,13 64,70 11,49 39,93 77,77 31,98 45,11 42,12 n/a 46,68
3.2.5 License and patent revenues from abroad 0,43 0,06 0,02 0,21 0,01 0,02 0,54 0,28 0,03 0,02 0,64
PERFORMANCE LEAD EU=100 AU BR CA CN IN JP KR RU SA US
Human resources
1.1.1 New doctorate graduates 112,9 25,5 70,6 124,0 100,0 63,7 85,4 22,4 8,7 98,3
1.1.2 Population completed tertiary education 140,1 58,4 178,4 35,9 33,2 158,2 141,6 181,5 21,6 146,1
Open, excellent and attractive research systems
1.2.1 International scientific co-publications 100,0 18,4 100,0 13,1 3,4 62,3 96,2 22,2 100,0 125,3
1.2.2 Scientific publications among top 10% most cited 100,0 46,9 100,0 60,2 56,1 64,3 81,6 17,7 100,0 132,0
Finance and support
1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sector 118,8 79,2 111,0 65,7 72,2 102,3 125,7 64,8 54,8 100,0
Firm investments
2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the business sector 95,6 39,1 68,4 117,1 22,2 199,1 221,9 50,9 27,7 151,1
Linkages & entrepreneurship
2.2.3 Public-private co-publications 72,7 3,6 101,0 5,1 1,5 101,7 108,4 3,5 6,3 173,6
Intellectual assets
2.3.1 PCT patent applications 63,5 2,4 70,7 34,4 1,2 211,8 211,8 10,4 18,8 99,6
2.3.2 PCT patent applications in societal challenges 72,9 2,7 81,3 18,3 1,7 194,0 194,0 11,0 17,5 117,0
Economic effects
3.2.2 Exports of medium & high-tech products 14,8 44,3 59,0 95,9 42,2 124,8 121,6 16,9 50,7 84,8
3.2.3 Exports of knowledge-intensive services 18,1 115,6 20,5 71,3 139,0 57,1 80,6 75,3 100,0 83,4
3.2.5 License and patent revenues from abroad 13,2 5,3 48,2 3,0 4,1 125,9 65,9 7,7 4,1 150,9
CHANGE IN PERFORMANCE LEAD AU BR CA CN IN JP KR RU SA US
Human resources
1.1.1 New doctorate graduates -0,1% -16% 1,3% -3,3% n/a 0,8% 3,9% -19% -0,7% 1,3%
1.1.2 Population completed tertiary education 2,3% 8,4% 0,5% 8,0% -1,5% 0,7% 2,5% -0,6% -1,5% -0,1%
Open, excellent and attractive research systems
1.2.1 International scientific co-publications n/a 2,1% n/a 7,0% 4,1% -3,5% 1,8% -6,5% n/a -2,7%
1.2.2 Scientific publications among top 10% most cited n/a 1,8% n/a 2,8% 6,5% -1,9% 0,0% -0,4% n/a -1,5%
Finance and support
1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sector -0,2% 0,5% -3,0% -1,4% -2,5% -1,5% 1,4% 2,6% -0,7% 0,0%
Firm investments
2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the business sector 0,4% -1,4% -5,0% 0,9% 0,8% -1,7% 0,3% -3,3% -7,1% -0,2%
Linkages & entrepreneurship
2.2.3 Public-private co-publications -2,6% -2,5% -3,9% 5,0% -0,2% -3,8% -1,4% -3,8% 0,4% -2,3%
Intellectual assets
2.3.1 PCT patent applications -4,8% 3,7% 0,4% 32,5% 4,1% 3,9% 13,4% -3,6% -7,3% -1,3%
2.3.2 PCT patent applications in societal challenges -5,1% 2,6% -3,0% 21,6% 1,2% 2,4% 17,0% -4,1% -3,9% -3,8%
Economic effects
3.2.2 Exports of medium & high-tech products -5,1% -3,2% -1,6% 0,8% 2,9% -0,3% 0,2% 0,9% -0,4% -2,9%
3.2.3 Exports of knowledge-intensive services 0,2% 4,6% -0,5% 5,0% -1,9% -2,3% -4,8% -0,8% n/a 1,3%
3.2.5 License and patent revenues from abroad -10% 4,6% -7,5% 3,4% -9,8% -0,5% -1,2% -5,3% -5,6% -3,4%
European Commission
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
2015 – 94 pp – 210 x 297 mm
ISSN 2363-3107
ISBN 978-92-79-44089-2
doi: 10.2769/247779
How to obtain EU publications
Free publications:
• viaEUBookshop(http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• attheEuropeanUnion’srepresentationsordelegations.Youcanobtaintheircontact
details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union
and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union):
• viaoneofthesalesagentsofthePublicationsOceoftheEuropeanUnion
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
NB-AY-15-001-EN-N
ISSN 2363-3107
ISBN 978-92-79-44089-2
doi: 10.2769/247779
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
... To test for the potential effect of culture, we carried out a cross-national study, collecting data from the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain, countries which differ on several relevant aspects. In terms of innovation level, the Netherlands is classified into the group of countries above or close to the European average, while Poland and Spain score below the European average level (Hollanders, Es-Sadki, & Kanerva, 2015). Since 2012, innovation performance in the Netherlands and Poland has been growing, while in Spain it has started to decrease (Hollanders et al., 2015). ...
... In terms of innovation level, the Netherlands is classified into the group of countries above or close to the European average, while Poland and Spain score below the European average level (Hollanders, Es-Sadki, & Kanerva, 2015). Since 2012, innovation performance in the Netherlands and Poland has been growing, while in Spain it has started to decrease (Hollanders et al., 2015). There are also cultural differences between these countries in individualism and power distance (Hofstede, 1980;House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004), fIGURE 1. Conceptual model of multilevel relationships between small business owners' (sBOs') work-related affect (enthusiasm and comfort) and work-related affect (enthusiasm and comfort) and innovative behavior of their employees. ...
... As new firms benefit more from innovation than mature ones (Rosenbusch et al., 2011), since they are usually more flexible and nimble than established firms, we considered firm age and firm size (Damanpour, 1992) in our analysis. We also tested the potential effects of demographic variables such as employees' and SBOs' sex and age, as some previous studies showed that these variables could be related to innovative behavior (e.g., Alsos, Ljunggren, & Hytti, 2013;Hollanders et al., 2015). ...
Article
The aim of this study was to explore cross‐level mechanisms stimulating employees’ innovative behavior in small firms, specifically emotional contagion between small business owners and their employees. Using data from three European countries and applying a multilevel approach, we tested how small business owners’ work‐related affect—enthusiasm and comfort—relate to their employees’ work‐related affect and innovative work behavior. The sample consisted of 85 small business owners and 711 employees from firms operating in the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain. Controlling for country, the results of multilevel modeling showed that small business owners’ work‐related affect was positively related to their employees’ work‐related affect. The hypothesized contagion of work‐related affect in small firms was, thus, supported. Employees’ work‐related affect, in turn, was positively associated with their innovative behavior. Employees’ work‐related affect mediated the relationship between small business owners’ work‐related affect and employees’ innovative behavior. The results also showed cross‐country differences in the strength of some of the relationships. The study is a step forward in understanding innovation in small firms, extending the insights gained from single‐level investigations.
... However, Poland was included in the group of moderate innovators -the third of the groups mentioned above (Hollanders et al., 2019). It should be emphasised that this situation has not changed since 2015, when Poland changed the group from the last one to the penultimate one (Hollanders and Es-Sadki, 2015). Nevertheless, the data show that SII (innovative activity) in Poland slightly increased from the level of 53.3 in 2011 to 61.1 in 2018 (+13%) over the past seven years, which allows us to consider this indicator in terms of 'innovative development'. ...
... 1990-2008 yılları incelendiğinde çoğu OECD üyesi ülkelerde bilgiye yapılan yatırımların, makine ve ekipmana yapılan yatırımlardan çok daha hızlı büyüdüğü gözlenmektedir [1]. Avrupa Komisyonunun 2014 yılı İnovasyon Birliği raporuna göre Avrupa Birliği üyesi ülkeler içinde ülkelerin inovasyon performansları arasındaki farklılıklar da giderek azalmaktadır [11]. ...